An alarming number of self described libertarians/anarchists support Trump.

[Jhhnn]

Spoken like somebody who hasnt a clue. Im sure you also call Somalia a libertarian paradise.

For the people at the top of that dung heap, it is. They're a law unto themselves. For the purposes of western society it just needs to scale up to multinational corporatism.

 

[Amused]

To be fair, Somalia is an example of anarchism, not libertarianism. Technically, libertarianism stands for a central government to protect individual rights and provide for a national defense, etc.

It's disingenuous to conflate libertarianism with anarchism.

 

[desura]

Libertarianism always struck me as like a "year zero" approach to politics. Basically, everyone is a libertarian, but then stuff happens in life that you have to take care of and government is a major tool in addressing these problems.

Libertarians simply seem to be saying ignore all history, ignore events on the ground. Government should be run by clear rules uncompromised by other concerns.

From a certain point of view, that means for instance, acquiescing to past white supremacy which has disadvantaged black people.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Libertarianism always struck me as like a "year zero" approach to politics. Basically, everyone is a libertarian, but then stuff happens in life that you have to take care of and government is a major tool in addressing these problems.

Libertarians simply seem to be saying ignore all history, ignore events on the ground. Government should be run by clear rules uncompromised by other concerns.

From a certain point of view, that means for instance, acquiescing to past white supremacy which has disadvantaged black people.

In many ways I've felt the same. It reminds me of the southpark episode where Cartman buys an amusement park for himself. Eventually he has to let one person in to pay for the guard to keep people from breaking in. Then another few come in to pay for the guy to fix the rides when they break. Another few to pay for, pay for that, until eventually he's just running a normal (albeit more successful due to stripping down and rebuilding) amusement park and hates it because it's not the ideal he strove for to begin with. This can basically apply to every single facet of government, which is why I laugh whenever I hear anyone (anarchist or president) talk about 'tearing down something'. You might get it back in a better form, but it's coming back.

 

[Genx87]

Libertarianism always struck me as like a "year zero" approach to politics. Basically, everyone is a libertarian, but then stuff happens in life that you have to take care of and government is a major tool in addressing these problems.

Libertarians simply seem to be saying ignore all history, ignore events on the ground. Government should be run by clear rules uncompromised by other concerns.

From a certain point of view, that means for instance, acquiescing to past white supremacy which has disadvantaged black people.

This is a common mis-perception of Libertarians. Libertarians believe in a form of govt. Mainly to protect personal property and human rights. And I agree with you that most everybody is a libertarian at heart. That is until they want to force other people to do things against their will. Suddenly the ideals of libertarians flies out the door. Many of these people in the OP are classic cases of this. They are all about being left alone until they cant leave others alone.

Libertarians don't ignore history history. Why would you think otherwise? So many examples of collectivism and authoritarians using govt to carry out horrible things. I think the whole racist angle in critique of libertarians is fascinating to me given the vast example of collectivist govts carrying our racist policies. In a libertarian world that white surpremacy movement would lack the govt force necessary to be forced upon everybody else.

 

[Genx87]

For the people at the top of that dung heap, it is. They're a law unto themselves. For the purposes of western society it just needs to scale up to multinational corporatism.

Corporatism at its heart is driven by collectivist govt. You fall into that stupidity trap every time.

 

[Amused]

Corporatism at its heart is driven by collectivist govt. You fall into that stupidity trap every time.

And robber barrons are driven by the opposite. What's needed is a balance. History has proven business cannot entirely self regulate either.

 

[thraashman]

I learned a long time ago that a libertarian is just a Republican who is slightly less racist, and if they are racist it's justified to them by some hoop jumping economic reason.

 

[Smoblikat]

Have you guys seen this picture? I hope the entire state of Wisconsin voted for Trump on this image alone (JK, but I find the picture extremely funny)

 

[Amused]

I learned a long time ago that a libertarian is just a Republican who is slightly less racist, and if they are racist it's justified to them by some hoop jumping economic reason.

In my experience, it's Republicans who find themselves to be socially liberal overall. People who are fiscally conservative, socially liberal. But instead of being moderate, fall down the absolutist rabbit hole.

 

[Genx87]

And robber barrons are driven by the opposite. What's needed is a balance. History has proven business cannot entirely self regulate either.

Robber barons absolutely utilized the force of govt. The original Robber barons used their legal status to steal from people and collect their wealth via toll taxes on the Rhine river.. Those legal protections were afforded to them by the state. If we look at the industrialist robber barons in this country. Many of them used the forced of govt to create their wealth.

 

[Genx87]

I learned a long time ago that a libertarian is just a Republican who is slightly less racist, and if they are racist it's justified to them by some hoop jumping economic reason.

Right, getting rid of the war on drugs, promoting equality between genders and races, and being anti-war are all hallmarks of the GOP.

 

[interchange]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_formation

It is important to note that reactive positions are exaggerated. So when you see an exaggerated stance coupled with hypocritical behavior, it's a good bet that this is happening.

If you were someone who had an unconscious fear that you were insufficient in some way and needed authority to provide you stability, wouldn't it be pretty distressing to embrace your powerlessness? Instead, you could take an exaggerated stance against authority, and because your unconscious knows you need it, to act in a way as to choose authority. Even better if that authority presents a public front of burning the establishment to the ground. Even better still if that authority is seriously flawed. After all, if that authority fails in reality to make up for your own inefficiencies, then you have a built in scapegoat.

 

[agent00f]

Spoken like somebody who hasnt a clue. Im sure you also call Somalia a libertarian paradise.

Just curious, if not Somalia what other place is libertarian?

 

[Jhhnn]

Corporatism at its heart is driven by collectivist govt. You fall into that stupidity trap every time.

Which explains the conflict between capitalism & marxism perfectly, I'm sure. Or at least in the Trumpistanis' alt-reality.

 

[Phokus]

Just curious, if not Somalia what other place is libertarian?

Some libertarians say Singapore, but the funny thing about that (besides not having many civil rights) is the government owns a significant amount of businesses on their own stock exchange, making them more socialist than the USA lol.

 

[Amused]

Just curious, if not Somalia what other place is libertarian?

I would say the most libertarian government on Earth currently would be Luxembourg followed by the US.

 

[Jhhnn]

To be fair, Somalia is an example of anarchism, not libertarianism. Technically, libertarianism stands for a central government to protect individual rights and provide for a national defense, etc.

It's disingenuous to conflate libertarianism with anarchism.

It just looks like anarchism to us. It's clans & chieftains organized along the Libertopian weak govt ideal.

 

[Amused]

It just looks like anarchism to us. It's clans & chieftains organized along the Libertopian weak govt ideal.

Actually, libertarianism requires a strong, yet limited government to protect individual rights and what is going on in Somalia is exactly what Ayn Rand said would happen in the absence of a said strong central government. One of the things she was absolutely correct on. Anarchy cannot ever exist in a steady state. Without a strong government, society falls to the first thug(s) to come along and dives into feudalism.

Let's be fair and objective here and not throw up strawmen.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I think it's a little funny that Kowloon Walled City was the closest thing to a true an-cap society that I'm aware of, and despite being dirty and cramped into a tiny park and just one bad fire away from a complete self-destruction, actually managed to thrive in many ways. More successful than any attempt at "true communism", at least. And that's obviously a ridiculous extreme, a standard partisans hold libertarians to since they have no principles of their own and thrive on a dichotomy where a handful of token issues dictate all electoral power and marginalize some of the most important problems.

 

[woolfe9998]

Corporatism at its heart is driven by collectivist govt. You fall into that stupidity trap every time.

Oh, so corporations have no power, so long as there is no government regulation or taxation of them? Taking away those taxes and regulations will DIMINISH them? That's what you're saying?

This is the most basic fallacy of libertarianism: take away government and there is a vacuum of power where everyone is "free" because it's only government that oppresses people. People have nothing to fear from concentrated wealth.

Horseshit.

 

[agent00f]

I would say the most libertarian government on Earth currently would be Luxembourg followed by the US.

Luxembourg is basically a tax haven, ie. leech off neighbors, not exactly libertarian of the purported murican sort.

I think it's a little funny that Kowloon Walled City was the closest thing to a true an-cap society that I'm aware of, and despite being dirty and cramped into a tiny park and just one bad fire away from a complete self-destruction, actually managed to thrive in many ways. More successful than any attempt at "true communism", at least. And that's obviously a ridiculous extreme, a standard partisans hold libertarians to since they have no principles of their own and thrive on a dichotomy where a handful of token issues dictate all electoral power and marginalize some of the most important problems.

Communism was only ever proposed as an eventual evolutionary step, for enlightened enough people. In the same way that modern civilization is unfit for primitive hunter/gatherers. How well it works really says more about the people than system.

 

[woolfe9998]

Just curious, if not Somalia what other place is libertarian?

You're asking someone who actually thinks that the way to diminish the power of concentrated wealth is to have no government putting any sort of restrictions on it at all. Just let corporations do whatever they want and they will cease being a menace to the common man.

You can't have a rational conversation with someone that imbecilic.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Oh, so corporations have no power, so long as there is no government regulation or taxation of them? Taking away those taxes and regulations will DIMINISH them? That's what you're saying?

This is the most basic fallacy of libertarianism: take away government and there is a vacuum of power where everyone is "free" because it's only government that oppresses people. People have nothing to fear from concentrated wealth.

Horseshit.

At present, many of the most powerful and harmful corporations (e.g. pharma companies) exist BECAUSE of government regulation, not absence of it. That's not universal and fundamentally all shared resources (e.g. land/pollution and utilities) must be regulated at a societal level, but monopolies generally thrive under government regulation.

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually, libertarianism requires a strong, yet limited government to protect individual rights and what is going on in Somalia is exactly what Ayn Rand said would happen in the absence of a said strong central government. One of the things she was absolutely correct on. Anarchy cannot ever exist in a steady state. Without a strong government, society falls to the first thug(s) to come along and dives into feudalism.

Let's be fair and objective here and not throw up strawmen.

Which all comes back around to my initial comment- that Libertarians are authoritarians of a slightly different stripe. For them, it's all about the authority of wealth & ownership of property. They see that as the legitimate root of power rather than the will of the people. While some balance between those opposing interests is necessary Libertarianism obviously won't deliver it, given the enormous economic disparities involved & human nature itself.

The Koch bros, for example, basically founded & fund Libertarian think tanks, front organizations & the whole movement itself. They are, in fact, Capitalists, make no mistake about it. Anybody who wants to call themselves a Libertarian would be more honest if they just said Capitalist, because that's really what's behind all the high sounding rhetoric. Well, unless they're a romantic, which seems to permeate the whole school of thought.