Libertarianism: The Official Thread Of Freedom As An Ideology.

[Abhorsen]

Just to bump this thread up, apparently there's some sort of civil war going on with the US Libertarian Party?

I follow a fair number of random "Liberty Twitter" people plus there's a lot of Libertarian ideas and articles one just absorbs via Reason or FEE or whatever so it was kinda on the radar... but I still have no idea what's really going on.

Maybe someone can shed some light on it?



Huh... wha??? No idea what's happening.

Mises Institute?

Cato Institute?

Who is Nicholas Sarwalk?

Yeah, this is a long story. So there is the Libertarian National Party (LNP), which is there, but basically useless, and it has been for years. As a political party, it is a failure, as it does not get people elected into office. As a political movement, it's very dubious, as it doesn't put pressure on actual, viable candidates either.

Then there is the Free State Project (FSP), the Mises Caucus, and Libertarian Party of New Hampshire (LPNH). All of these have actually been getting stuff done, and working in concert.

The Free State Project has been hard at work since around 2000 getting libertarians to move to New Hampshire and basically shove it to the Libertarian side, which has been hugely successful. A big part of this has been electing 'Republicans' who are really free staters/Libertarians, by taking over the primaries (sometimes they do this to democrats also, resulting in a funny general election where you have your choice of two libertarians to elect). Now this might annoy the Libertarian National Party a bit, as they aren't electing Libertarian Party members, but instead libertarians who are technically 'Republicans', but I'm not sure about this part.

Now the LPNH had somewhat divided loyalties here, but then got taken over by the Mises Caucus, which caused a big to do with the Libertarian National Party, whose leadership doesn't like the Mises Caucus. Why? The Mises Caucus basically has a lot of Trump's/alt-right energy, disregard for politeness, and disdain for wokeness, but none of the Trumps/the right's non-libertarian positions. At 'worst' (from the perspective of a libertarian), they just don't focus on some of the stuff Trump really disagrees with Libertarians on (like opening immigration is a nice to have for the Mises Caucus, but not their first priority).

The Mises Caucus tends not to focus on 'winnable' candidates, because the candidates won't win regardless. Instead, it focuses on getting candidates that will broadcast their message as loudly as possible, so people hear what we have to say. Hence ads like this:



He doesn't think he's going to win, but he does want to make being anti-war a campaign point for the Dems and Republicans he's running against, shoving the Overton window towards freedom.

Nicholas Sawark was one of the heads of the LNP, before resigning in basic disgrace.

Cato is a major libertarian think tank, probably the libertarian think tank.

Lolberts and Pedos are being driven out the LP and this is is somehow a Nazi plot?

The Libertarian movement needs more far right fuckers not less.

We don't need the far right, as we aren't a right wing organization. The Mises Caucus, Cato, etc, aren't far right organizations, or even right wing ones. They are libertarian ones that some 'libertarians' just don't like as they've bought into left wing talking points. Look, I know it seems like a minor point, but it's honestly not to libertarians. We very much don't want to be run by a bunch of tepid republicans.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Yeah you need right wing shit.

Otherwise you're gonna get subverted by pedophiles and communists again

 

[Abhorsen]

Yeah you need right wing shit.

Otherwise you're gonna get subverted by pedophiles and communists again

No, we don't. We don't want right or left wingers. We want libertarians, it's in the party name. We've never been subverted by commies, tbc. And the republicans have their own problems with pedos, just like everyone else does. The left just glorifies them, which is why they get all the attention.

Seriously, there are a ton of things we hate about the right: stupd trade embargoes, pro war (lessened, thankfully, but still there), pro cop, pro 'good' welfare, their half of crony capitalism, and I could go on.

Look, if you are a right leaning/left leaning person, but still mostly a libertarian, that's fine. But all too often someone on the right says "I'm basically a libertarian" and really they are nowhere near one. We don't want them turning the libertarian institutions into a branch of the republican party, unless we are in control, not them (see the Free Staters, for example).

Quite bluntly, the republicans are just too trusting of the 'right kind' of big government. They'd be all for the FBI violating all kinds of civil liberties if they 'own the libs' on twitter.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

No, we don't. We don't want right or left wingers. We want libertarians, it's in the party name. We've never been subverted by commies, tbc. And the republicans have their own problems with pedos, just like everyone else does. The left just glorifies them, which is why they get all the attention.
.

Yes you absolutely have.

Also why are you talking about Republicans? I said right wingers not controlled opposition party members.

 

[Abhorsen]

Yes you absolutely have.

Also why are you talking about Republicans? I said right wingers not controlled opposition party members.

The libertarian movement as a whole? Not really. Sure, there's probably a few, there's the weird libertarian socialist caucus who are the butt of jokes but not anywhere near power, but the LNP quite frankly isn't worth the time to actually infiltrate. If you are saying that some of our people are woke, sure a few are, but that's still not communist infiltration. That's people paralyzed by PC-ness. It's bad, it's not communist infiltration.

For example, anyone suggesting seizing property is gonna be laughed off the stage. For that matter, anyone suggesting additional taxes for any reason is going to be laughed at. Anyone not suggesting slashing budgets and social programs would be laughed at.

As for republicans vs. right wingers, we have the same problems with both of them:
They are both too fond of government, just the 'right type' of it. They have the same problems (from a libertarian POV): anti-immigration, pro-cop, pro-war (somewhat less now, but still there), anti-free trade (new, but concerning), etc.

Or if you're talking about only republican's being infiltrated by pedos, so are all large enough right wing organizations. Same with any organization. A big enough organization will have some number of pedos, serial killers, etc. The lefts problem is the glorification of them, which libertarians don't have (much), just like right wing organizations don't have (much).

 

[Agent23]

My soon to be even more worthless 0.02 Euros.
Libertarianism has the exact same problem as Communism, liberalism and socialism, although it is a bit more realistic because it understands the profit motive.

Those philosophies all view human beings as potentially rational, individualistic and objective actors.

Well, people are just marginally evolved chimps driven by the same biological needs to work as part of a small group that usually functions in opposition to other small groups of chimps.
Of course, there is the purely personal motivation within the group as well, which grants the individual chimp more prestige, mating privileges, and food.
Monkeys of one group would ambush and murder those of another, sometimes even if they joined their group.
So basically we compete to cooperate and cooperate to compete, as neocon idiot trying to self reform Francis Fukuyama explained in one of his newer, less ideology-driven books.

And yeah, I know the guy vehemently hates libertarians, but the monkey research he cites checks out, even if he still is a pompous ass and even if there were a few copium-induced bits of his books.

 

[Abhorsen]

Those philosophies all view human beings as potentially rational, individualistic and objective actors.

No, we don't. Most libertarians are very aware people are a bunch of assholes quite happy with shoving the other down just cause they want to. And libertarians are more aware than most of people being ignorant (and don't have a problem with it, there's a whole concept called rational ignorance: basically there's a point of relevance after which it's not worth spending the time to learn stuff).

But I will put forward that almost everyone is rational, based on their own weird priorities (which makes them seem irrational to outsiders). Like a crackhead stabbing the closest person for money to buy drugs is pretty rational: they put a high priority on gratification now, and crack is their main gratification.

Communism and socialism also don't view people as perfectly rational. In fact, they view a great number of people as deluded under false consciousness. On top of that they don't value people as individuals, but instead think people will put the group above themselves.

 

[Agent23]

No, we don't. Most libertarians are very aware people are a bunch of assholes quite happy with shoving the other down just cause they want to. And libertarians are more aware than most of people being ignorant (and don't have a problem with it, there's a whole concept called rational ignorance: basically there's a point of relevance after which it's not worth spending the time to learn stuff).

Notice I said potentially.
Also, libertarians have one subjective view of rationality, while rationality from a purely evolutionary standpoint might be very, very different.
Also most Ancaps and the other True Libertarians TM that I met over the years were usually all too eager to call me a Minarchist.

But I will put forward that almost everyone is rational, based on their own weird priorities (which makes them seem irrational to outsiders). Like a crackhead stabbing the closest person for money to buy drugs is pretty rational: they put a high priority on gratification now, and crack is their main gratification.

Communism and socialism also don't view people as perfectly rational. In fact, they view a great number of people as deluded under false consciousness. On top of that they don't value people as individuals, but instead think people will put the group above themselves.

TBH libertarians and commies are very similar in that they all buy into the religiously-inspired Lockean notions of individualism and the like.

Self-sacrifice for the group, for example, is something that grew up out of and still is based around biologically-driven kin selection, with the subset being the best at it managing to breed more than the subset that is purely "rational" and individualistic.

What the commies don't understand is in group preference, nepotism where close kin and breeding partners are concerned, and nationalism, regionalism, and other forms of ethnic and religious and regional favoritism are concerned.

 

[Abhorsen]

Notice I said potentially.
Also, libertarians have one subjective view of rationality, while rationality from a purely evolutionary standpoint might be very, very different.
Also most Ancaps and the other True Libertarians TM that I met over the years were usually all too eager to call me a Minarchist.

So quickly in order: Libertarians don't pretend humans can be objective, or at least that is in no way core to our beliefs. We think people are selfish and rational (as in the economic sense of responding to incentives by taking them in a way that makes sense to that person, not in the intellectual sense of thinking through actions and weighing both sides).

Rationality from a evolutionary standpoint isn't how people neccessarily act though. Look at the left: they are using condoms and not reproducing... Actually, that might be rational for the population at large, nvm.

And yeah, AnCaps are stupid (so is anyone who follows a ideology off the deepend), but minarchism is definitely part of libertarianism in general. Nothing wrong with that.

TBH libertarians and commies are very similar in that they all buy into the religiously-inspired Lockean notions of individualism and the like.

... Communists don't buy into that though. Like I agree that libertarians do, but communists very much don't. Communism is a collectivist ideology. They just don't group on any of these:

What the commies don't understand is in group preference, nepotism where close kin and breeding partners are concerned, and nationalism, regionalism, and other forms of ethnic and religious and regional favoritism are concerned.

Instead, they group based on class (and now intersectionality).

They very much don't consider the rights of the individual. They actively dislike those.

Self-sacrifice for the group, for example, is something that grew up out of and still is based around biologically-driven kin selection, with the subset being the best at it managing to breed more than the subset that is purely "rational" and individualistic.

Libertarians also understand this though. It fits right into a subjective understanding of rationality: valuing someone else's benefit more than your own. Libertarians just tend not to extend the group they do this for very far from themselves, but we still get that other people do it extensively.

 

[Agent23]

Libertarians also understand this though. It fits right into a subjective understanding of rationality: valuing someone else's benefit more than your own. Libertarians just tend not to extend the group they do this for very far from themselves, but we still get that other people do it extensively.

I think that the whole idea behind socialism/communism is that once all of the boogiemen are killed off and soviets have seized the means of production everyone will choose to live in the commie utopa.
Marxists see the state as something they have to capture, but their belief is that afterwards when they reach "real socialism" they will have some type of government and authority-free democratic collectivist system to which everyone voluntarily subscribes.

In short, nonsense, but it is still nonsense brought about by liberal theories about humans and their rationality, like the noble savage and other such enlightenment whackyness.

 

[Abhorsen]

I think that the whole idea behind socialism/communism is that once all of the boogiemen are killed off and soviets have seized the means of production everyone will choose to live in the commie utopa.
Marxists see the state as something they have to capture, but their belief is that afterwards when they reach "real socialism" they will have some type of government and authority-free democratic collectivist system to which everyone voluntarily subscribes.

In short, nonsense, but it is still nonsense brought about by liberal theories about humans and their rationality, like the noble savage and other such enlightenment whackyness.

It isn't individualistic nonsense though. That puts it on the opposite side of classical liberalism and libertarianism. The enlightenment stuff about individual rights is totally ignored by communists. (Also, not sure you quoted the right part of my post).

 

[Agent23]

It isn't individualistic nonsense though. That puts it on the opposite side of classical liberalism and libertarianism. The enlightenment stuff about individual rights is totally ignored by communists. (Also, not sure you quoted the right part of my post).

I thought both classic liberalism and the various leftist ideologies all got influenced byJean-Jacques Rousseau and his ilk.
You know, noble savage, man is born free but everywhere he is in chains and all that jazz.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

Being pro immigration without it being rigorous and merit based is essentially committing cultural genocide against yourself while asking for a welfare state.

Saying this as an immigrant. The US needs to deport at least 17 million people or close it's borders for the next 40 years to give the invaders here time to either die from old age or assimilate.

As for republicans vs. right wingers, we have the same problems with both of them:
They are both too fond of government, just the 'right type' of it. They have the same problems (from a libertarian POV): anti-immigration, pro-cop, pro-war (somewhat less now, but still there), anti-free trade (new, but concerning), etc.

..dude most of us on the New Right don't think government employees ought to be allowed to vote and are in favor of Roman style treason trials and some us go even further than that and think we should be allowed to have drum head trials of intelligence people without law enforcement involvement. Just so our leadership class lives in perpetual terror of citizens and are made to be more subservient in that climate of fear.

Others want to make it a death penalty offense to form private-public partnerships, especially for banks. They're unequivocally more minarchistic than you guys are.

You're strawmanning hard to defend a party run by spectrum disorder having spazzes and peopled with guys who used to be antifa and really wanna fuck kids.

Edit- just quality control your own people better and you won't lose all the time.

 

[Abhorsen]

I thought both classic liberalism and the various leftist ideologies all got influenced byJean-Jacques Rousseau and his ilk.
You know, noble savage, man is born free but everywhere he is in chains and all that jazz.

Kinda-sorta, but not enough, and also that's not the extent of the enlightenment. There were a huge variety of enlightenment thinkers, who very much disagreed with each other on a lot, so the term 'Enlightenment values' is kinda a misnomer, as it really only applies to a subset of values some thinkers had during the enlightenment, and what that subset is depends on who's using the term. Like Hobbes and Locke were both Enlightenment thinkers. Same with Voltaire and Leibnitz. Immanuel Kant as well.

For example, Locke, Rosseau, and Hobbes very much disagree as to the fundamental nature of man. Rosseau of course believed in the noble savage, and thought that people made a government to get unity. Locke, however, was of the (much more sensible) idea that people want a government to protect rights that would otherwise be violated, cause man isn't inherently good (he believed in a tabula rasa).

So while communism does get some of its origin ideas from Rosseau, and Libertarianism does get some of its origin ideas from Locke, that doesn't mean there's a whole lot of similarity. On top of this, many of the ideas were modified, sometimes part of a philosophy is grabbed and the rest ignored, etc. Like, libertarians keep Locke's idea of private property, but generally don't care about his tabula rasa view.

The US constitution, for another example, grabbed Rosseau's balance of powers, but ignored the noble savage part.

In general, I'd say it's better to focus on the modern day beliefs than the distant origins of them. Communism as an ideology abhors the concept of individual rights, instead focusing on the 'rights' of the group (namely just one group, the proletariat). Their pursuit of there end goal will justify any means. Libertarians, however, put a primacy on the individual, disdaining the group. As you can see by the scare quotes, we really don't believe in group rights. Just individual ones.

Which is why they are inherently opposed to each other. Any victory for the individual is a strike against group 'rights' and visa versa.

Being pro immigration without it being rigorous and merit based is essentially committing cultural genocide against yourself while asking for a welfare state.

Saying this as an immigrant. The US needs to deport at least 17 million people or close it's borders for the next 40 years to give the invaders here time to either die from old age or assimilate.

Nearly all libertarians are going to be very pro immigration. Some are going to be of the opinion that we first need to kill the welfare state, but that's about the only limitation. I'm basically a member of the second group.

Now getting rid of the welfare state has the positive affect of basically makes it merit based. I especially support immigrants who are fleeing from communism as well, on both humanitarian and fixing the current culture. Make communists hated again!

But ultimately, this is going to be a core belief of libertarianism: a primacy on the individual, not the group, for better or worse. Ultimately stopping immigration is going to be considered at best a necessary evil.

..dude most of us on the New Right don't think government employees ought to be allowed to vote and are in favor of Roman style treason trials and some us go even further than that and think we should be allowed to have drum head trials of intelligence people without law enforcement involvement. Just so our leadership class lives in perpetual terror of citizens and are made to be more subservient in that climate of fear.

Others want to make it a death penalty offense to form private-public partnerships, especially for banks. They're unequivocally more minarchistic than you guys are.

You're strawmanning hard to defend a party run by spectrum disorder having spazzes and peopled with guys who used to be antifa and really wanna fuck kids.

Edit- just quality control your own people better and you won't lose all the time.

You are talking about the new right, not right wingers in general though. And no, I'm not defending the party here (the LNP is 100% a joke, I agree with you here). I'm talking about the ideology most of the time.

As for intelligence trials and ending private public partnerships, that's the start of libertarianism, not where it ends. I do agree there are similarities, but there are definitely differences as well. We're different. And that's okay, I'm fine with that and working with you guys where we agree, we just differ on some stuff also. I'm not blaming you guys for disagreeing with me, I'm just pointing out where we do. The new right likely agrees on anti war, but are they pro near universal free trade? Are they pro killing all subsidies? (Honestly don't know). I know they are anti-immigration, which is a major difference, but what do they think about regular (or to be fair, most of the problem is urban) cops?

Like I'd say about 75% of libertarians thought Derek Chauvin was in the wrong for how he did the arrest. But 100% of libertarians think the officer choking Eric Gardner was in the wrong. Why? Because the cop was enforcing an unjust law. We have a huge problem with regular cops and other enforcement officers enforcing morally bankrupt laws. We don't just stop with our dislike of the FBI.

As for voting, almost all votes are violent, as you elect a legislator who is going to make a law that allows the state added ways or reasons to do violence to people. It's just that voting is the least violent way we know how to run a stable government.

 

[Agent23]

Kinda-sorta, but not enough, and also that's not the extent of the enlightenment. There were a huge variety of enlightenment thinkers, who very much disagreed with each other on a lot, so the term 'Enlightenment values' is kinda a misnomer, as it really only applies to a subset of values some thinkers had during the enlightenment, and what that subset is depends on who's using the term. Like Hobbes and Locke were both Enlightenment thinkers. Same with Voltaire and Leibnitz. Immanuel Kant as well.

For example, Locke, Rosseau, and Hobbes very much disagree as to the fundamental nature of man. Rosseau of course believed in the noble savage, and thought that people made a government to get unity. Locke, however, was of the (much more sensible) idea that people want a government to protect rights that would otherwise be violated, cause man isn't inherently good (he believed in a tabula rasa).

So while communism does get some of its origin ideas from Rosseau, and Libertarianism does get some of its origin ideas from Locke, that doesn't mean there's a whole lot of similarity. On top of this, many of the ideas were modified, sometimes part of a philosophy is grabbed and the rest ignored, etc. Like, libertarians keep Locke's idea of private property, but generally don't care about his tabula rasa view.

The US constitution, for another example, grabbed Rosseau's balance of powers, but ignored the noble savage part.

In general, I'd say it's better to focus on the modern day beliefs than the distant origins of them. Communism as an ideology abhors the concept of individual rights, instead focusing on the 'rights' of the group (namely just one group, the proletariat). Their pursuit of there end goal will justify any means. Libertarians, however, put a primacy on the individual, disdaining the group. As you can see by the scare quotes, we really don't believe in group rights. Just individual ones.

Which is why they are inherently opposed to each other. Any victory for the individual is a strike against group 'rights' and visa versa.


Nearly all libertarians are going to be very pro immigration. Some are going to be of the opinion that we first need to kill the welfare state, but that's about the only limitation. I'm basically a member of the second group.

Now getting rid of the welfare state has the positive affect of basically makes it merit based. I especially support immigrants who are fleeing from communism as well, on both humanitarian and fixing the current culture. Make communists hated again!

But ultimately, this is going to be a core belief of libertarianism: a primacy on the individual, not the group, for better or worse. Ultimately stopping immigration is going to be considered at best a necessary evil.


You are talking about the new right, not right wingers in general though. And no, I'm not defending the party here (the LNP is 100% a joke, I agree with you here). I'm talking about the ideology most of the time.

As for intelligence trials and ending private public partnerships, that's the start of libertarianism, not where it ends. I do agree there are similarities, but there are definitely differences as well. We're different. And that's okay, I'm fine with that and working with you guys where we agree, we just differ on some stuff also. I'm not blaming you guys for disagreeing with me, I'm just pointing out where we do. The new right likely agrees on anti war, but are they pro near universal free trade? Are they pro killing all subsidies? (Honestly don't know). I know they are anti-immigration, which is a major difference, but what do they think about regular (or to be fair, most of the problem is urban) cops?

Like I'd say about 75% of libertarians thought Derek Chauvin was in the wrong for how he did the arrest. But 100% of libertarians think the officer choking Eric Gardner was in the wrong. Why? Because the cop was enforcing an unjust law. We have a huge problem with regular cops and other enforcement officers enforcing morally bankrupt laws. We don't just stop with our dislike of the FBI.

As for voting, almost all votes are violent, as you elect a legislator who is going to make a law that allows the state added ways or reasons to do violence to people. It's just that voting is the least violent way we know how to run a stable government.

Well, some forms of migration, in particular company-sponsored migration, are pretty much a form of roman slave trade with a few companies importing cheap, often substandard staff and/or outsourcing important work outright.
This puts downward pressure on wages and makes it harder for people to preserve their earning power and deincentivizes locals from working in tech IMHO.

I generally prefer the idea of capitalism in one country or block of countries that aligh on things like the rule of law, some regulations regarding actually relevant stuff, like actually clean water and air and personal rights and free enterprise, with minimal outsourcing.

Cost cutting is frankly one of the dumbest things a business can focus on, quality, production efficiency, and keeping bureaucracy to a bare minimum.
And don't get me started on useless garbage like time tracking and all middle management, HR Karens and meetings.

 

[Abhorsen]

Well, some forms of migration, in particular company-sponsored migration, are pretty much a form of roman slave trade with a few companies importing cheap, often substandard staff and/or outsourcing important work outright.
This puts downward pressure on wages and makes it harder for people to preserve their earning power and deincentivizes locals from working in tech IMHO.

The difference between it and the slave trade is that the people consented to be moved. Yes, it does put downward pressure on wages. But to a libertarian, that's part and parcel of being part of the free market. Again, there is an emphasis on individual rights here.

See, a socialist sees this and comes to the same conclusion you are (not calling you a socialist, to be clear, just saying there's one similarity): this depresses wages, that's bad, and we need to protect the (current) workers. Note the collectivism though: both you and the socialist believe that the group has a right to fight against these workers.

This is completely counter to a libertarian's view. The libertarian asks both sides (the company and the immigrant/prospective employee, not anyone else) if they consent, and if both say yes, is fine with this.

Yes, this might suck for someone else, but they don't have the right to interfere in other people's business. Even if it would benefit society at large.

And as it turns out, this sort of immigration is how the US maintains it's power. By accepting those who are willing to move, they come here and benefit the US (having already selected for not needing welfare on an HB-2 visa as they have a job waiting). These sort of immigrants benefit the US via constant brain drain from other, worse off countries, places people don't want to stay. It's good for the nation that we keep this going.

As for trade, the only time I'm really against it is when it's subsidizing slave labor or other great evil. So not trading with China is something I'd be fine with. But not having free trade with another country is something I'd disdain.


Also, cost cutting is actually a vital way things improve economically. The stagnation and protectionism you suggest will lead to a lot of problems long term, as shown in both when Detroit was beaten by Japan, and when the US Shipping industry died cause of the Jones act. If there's no reason to be competitive, eventually you get out competed to such an extent that people find ways around it and then your company goes to shit. Now that's not a moral argument, just an economic one, but it is definitely one any libertarian would raise.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Frankly if I had my way, both the left and the right would be given free helicopter rides to a dessert island where you guys can Duke it and go as chimp ape or whatever primate they want. I'm really sick of all the white noise. I'm really beginning to think outlawing duels was a mistake.

 

[JagerIV]

Frankly if I had my way, both the left and the right would be given free helicopter rides to a dessert island where you guys can Duke it and go as chimp ape or whatever primate they want. I'm really sick of all the white noise. I'm really beginning to think outlawing duels was a mistake.

I mean, that's what your going to get, the left and right will duke it out, and the winner will rule. Given history, the left will probably be the ones who rule you. The idea the main issues are white noise is interesting.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

I mean, that's what your going to get, the left and right will duke it out, and the winner will rule. Given history, the left will probably be the ones who rule you. The idea the main issues are white noise is interesting.

When I say white noise I mean all whining no action. How long are we going to keep posting the same crap on an empty forum over and over again until we actually implement a solution or shut up?

 

[JagerIV]

When I say white noise I mean all whining no action. How long are we going to keep posting the same crap on an empty forum over and over again until we actually implement a solution or shut up?

what are you doing?