United States Why Do Libertarians Always Lose?

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
I largely agree with you, actually. Libertarian stuff is happening but economic libertarianism outside of free trade and immigration isn't. You think that mainstream parties co-opt a lot of libertarian policies, so people don't really care about the libertarians themselves?
Libertarianism has been a core component of Conservatism since the late 1970s at the very least. To be frank, I find this modern crowing of Libertarians as somehow suddenly in ascendance and all important to be hilarious, because it shows how politically illiterate they actually ARE when it comes to the historic political coalitions.

The dominate Conservative philosophy of the 1980s, the one Ronald Reagan primarily held to, and the one that still is more or less the standard that everyone varies from, was called "Fusionism" and involved three core ideals: Social Traditionalism, National Defense, and Libertarianism. These three were so critical that Reagan described them it as a "three legged stool", which is a very interesting concept since a three legged stool cannot stand without all three legs, but it ALSO does not wobble.

Historically, Libertarians who actually CARED about Libertarian ideals joined one of the two major parties to influence them, and historically had a lot more influence in the Republican party and Conservatism in general. You can see this by who the most influential Libertarians in America have been over the last thirty years: the Pauls.

However, the Libertarian Party and many of those who describe themselves as "Libertarians" rejected the alliance with Republicans because they were not actually concerned about Liberty for the population and limiting the scope and influence of the Federal government in the average person's life, rather, they are really more about being Libertines. Look at their core concerns: sex, drugs, and money, and rejecting the limits on those placed by Social Traditions and responsibility. In that sense, they have much more in common with Progressive Leftists than with Conservatives, because they are primarily concerned with themselves and their ability to pursue self interests, and see the Progressives as enabling them to pursue their hedonistic desires.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
Libertines. Look at their core concerns: sex, drugs, and money, and rejecting the limits on those placed by Social Traditions and responsibility. In that sense, they have much more in common with Progressive Leftists than with Conservatives, because they are primarily concerned with themselves and their ability to pursue self interests, and see the Progressives as enabling them to pursue their hedonistic desires.

Then the Progressive Leftists start losing them when they start going on about “growing up” and “yeah you gotta change all this sexist, racist, toxic masculinity crap” and “it’s not realistic”

And most idiotically of all, importing en masse, Muslim migrants who are ironically way more socially conservative than the Right and more censorious and restricting

The moment they really pushed so-called “progress” over actually having fun is when they give a reason to be boo’d
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Right up until the Left starts calling it pure evil or offensive and oppressive
If libertarians and leftists come into conflict on some issue, the leftists will inevitably win, and certain number of libertarians will cheer them on.

For example, how many free market types are willing to make the abolition of anti-discrimination laws their main platform?
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
If libertarians and leftists come into conflict on some issue, the leftists will inevitably win, and certain number of libertarians will cheer them on.

For example, how many free market types are willing to make the abolition of anti-discrimination laws their main platform?

Probably gonna go about how people aren’t that racist to begin with and if a customer has money or if an employee or potential employee would be a good one, there’s no need

Would probably have an issue with the forced diversity hiring
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Probably gonna go about how people aren’t that racist to begin with and if a customer has money or if an employee or potential employee would be a good one, there’s no need

Would probably have an issue with the forced diversity hiring
First, there's ample amount of empirical evidence suggesting that women discriminate when it comes to whom they date, that ethnocentrism is genetic in origin and manifest from birth, that it's universal throughout all mankind, and that it's a far more viable evolutionary strategy than altruism. The reason it doesn't seem like most people aren't racist is 1) the word "racist" effectively means "bad" and 2) people in modern society have been propagandized from youth to not be racist.

Second, your argument assumes that people only care about cheap goods or cheap labor. Sure, some people do. But some people don't. There will probably be quite a bit of discrimination if you remove the legal consequences of discrimination.

Third and finally, you've done nothing to undermine my point. My point was that libertarians haven't "won over" people to their ideas; rather, the Left has successfully implemented its preferred policies, and those policies just so happen to overlap with libertarianism's preferred policies.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
Third and finally, you've done nothing to undermine my point. My point was that libertarians haven't "won over" people to their ideas; rather, the Left has successfully implemented its preferred policies, and those policies just so happen to overlap with libertarianism's preferred policies.

Okay

Though gotta ask to begin with, how many people are even aware of Libertarianism? And do NOT conflate it with being a Right-Wing Fascist Nazi Corporatist? I only heard the term sometime after college

And I don't think the Left are responsible for everything to do with more tolerance and actual casual joy

Their laws are sort of for show and a means of control
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
My thought is that things that permanent victories libertarians crow about that have been accomplished have all happened to be things the Left wanted. Funny, that. Cthulhu always swims left.
What areas do Libertarians crow about?

Pot legalization? That's hardly truly a settled issue, and while it's made some gains in the last decade, it's always been a weird one in that it's not an area that Social Conservatives really care about, as they don't see the issue as fundamentally all that different than alcohol or tobacco, thus something is permissible in society but regulated to ensure minimal damage.

Abortion? Being pro-abortion isn't actually a core Libertarian position, there's a sharp divide within Libertarianism concerning the issue that mirrors the same sharp divide in wider society. A core part of Libertarian philosophy is something called the "Non-Aggression Principle", which means that freedom only extends so far as it involves doing things that do not cause harm to other individuals. That means that if one considers a fetus a human person, with the same attendant rights, that abortion is actually prohibited under Libertarian philosophy. In reverse, if you do not consider a fetus a human person with the attendant right, abortion is actually mandated by Libertarian philosophy, as prohibiting it infringes on the woman's body.

Economic policy? Libertarian economic policies have never really been implemented in total as neither side really believes in them. The closest it ever came might have been under the W. Bush, when he got rid of a bunch of Clinton era policies while pursuing free trade and didn't pursue border controls. This is one of the few areas one can say Libertarians have never made any real headway on.

LGBT issues and specifically Gay Marriage? One issue that fit in well with the larger Progressive movement and has been removed from political discussion via the courts. This is perhaps the ONLY issue that your position is accurate to.

Gun right? Those have been expanding despite systemic Progressive resistance to them. Further, the expansion is as firmly in place as Gay Marriage is, actually, arguably, they're more firmly in place. It's taking it's dear sweet time, but eventually the Supreme Court is going to have to take more gun control cases and when they do, they're not going to rule the way the Progressives hope. Any more than they are liable to overturn gay marriage anytime soon. In fact, Abortion is probably MORE likely to be returned to the public as a political issue than gun rights are.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Though gotta ask to begin with, how many people are even aware of Libertarianism? And do NOT conflate it with being a Right-Wing Fascist Nazi Corporatist? I only heard the term sometime after college

And I don't think the Left are responsible for everything to do with more tolerance and actual casual joy

Their laws are sort of for show and a means of control
My guess? Not too many.

But to be fair to libertarians, the Left conflates everything they don't like with Nazism. They're hardly unique in that regard.

What areas do Libertarians crow about?

I mean... from what I've seen, pot legalization is a settled issue in the Left's favor with only token opposition from conservatives, the economy has been becoming more and more state-reliant (just look at how much money we spend!), and the push for gun control has become stronger and stronger.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
My guess? Not too many.

But to be fair to libertarians, the Left conflates everything they don't like with Nazism. They're hardly unique in that regard.

I think there's also the problem that Libertarianism at times sounds like Right-wing stuff

Specifically the whole, "If you work hard enough you can make it big like me"

Think of the movie Get Hard, the republican businessman who says that also mentions that he got a $6 Million dollar loan in the same sentence to the working class black guy he becomes friends with and decides to help invest in said friend's new carwash business later in the movie

Equal Opportunity is hypocrisy and impossible, because there will be people born with wealth and there's the assumption that it's impossible for new guys, especially minorities to get in
 

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
The invisible hand, as Adam Smith understood it, was simply a description of how a baker doesn’t have to like you in order to make bread for you. Wanting to make a profit for yourself isn’t the same as behaving like a “selfish git.” Only an egoist would confuse healthy self-interest with selfishness (where you have a disordered love of yourself).
Oh, that. I was mostly exaggerating there for effect. But interestingly, being completely selfish in regards to money frequently leads you to act remarkably similar to a nice person, if one puts enough forethought into their actions. On the other hand, if one acts 'gernously' with other peoples money for the common good, that leads to problems.

I'll read the long article you sent me (I prefer reading to podcasts), but the Sam Altman blog was much shorter, and he does strike me as an idiot. First, of course GDP growth slows over time: GDP growth slowing over time is natural as a country develops. Its easier for countries that are behind to catch up than countries that are ahead to keep pace, because countries that are ahead need to develop new things, while countries that are behind just need to copy what the countries ahead of them do. Basically, the US is out ahead of most, so we go slower. as other countries catch up, they too will slow. I learned about this in Basic Macro in College. It's not because our country is collapsing.

In addition, always be wary of someone slapping a shallow trendline on data. The employment one cuts out just before Trump's employment figures bring it back down, and the interest rate trend comes from 2 weird periods: the high inflation of the Oil crisis, and the great recession's rate cuts. That's really just two points, hardly a trendline.

The next telling point about the guy not getting economics are these two quotes:

How to best drive economic growth is a difficult question. It’s easy to say we should just invest in science and technology, and although that’s probably right it’s easier said than done. The government is historically bad at picking winners to invest in, but our leaders can perhaps help reverse the cultural shift from pro-science to anti-science. Our current culture has shifted to be anti-science; the fear of things like genetically modified food and robots is obviously in the way of growth.

We should strive to make jobs in science and technology more appealing than jobs in finance (incidentally, it should be a big red flag for growth when the brightest young people start going into finance, since they aren’t actually creating any more wealth, just redistributing it).
/QUOTE]
The guy doesn't seem to understand that he just contradicted himself. Financial people are the ones who make money by figuring out how to drive economic growth, what project is likely to do well, etc. They do a vital job, that government is really bad at. Yet he bemoans people doing that, when he, himself, isn't in tech any more, he's an Angel investor (aka a finance guy). So I'm going to have to conclude that Sam Altman, is, in fact, an idiot.
However, the Libertarian Party and many of those who describe themselves as "Libertarians" rejected the alliance with Republicans because they were not actually concerned about Liberty for the population and limiting the scope and influence of the Federal government in the average person's life, rather, they are really more about being Libertines. Look at their core concerns: sex, drugs, and money, and rejecting the limits on those placed by Social Traditions and responsibility. In that sense, they have much more in common with Progressive Leftists than with Conservatives, because they are primarily concerned with themselves and their ability to pursue self interests, and see the Progressives as enabling them to pursue their hedonistic desires.
I would argue that as the progressive part got more and more of what both of us wanted (starting with ending racism as a political force, and going on up til gay marriage), the libertarians have had less and less reasons to ally with them, as our interests have diverged more and more. They were useful while they lasted, but we got most of what we wanted from them, namely civil rights. Now why bother with them? I expect any remaining alliances of conveniences to slowly end.

Also, as for libertarians actively taking over a party, the Free Staters would like to talk about taking over New Hampshire. They've gotten elected to state office, and made a voting block. They are there, removing seatbelt laws and making it a constitutional carry state. If there was a big city in New Hampshirer, I'd probably move up there in a heartbeat.
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Fundamentally libertarianism I think just doesn't have an inbuilt base.

Its basically, social liberalism and economic liberalism. Or rather the freedom of the market and human freedom as it pertains to social affairs.

Thing is-most people don't hold to this.

Democrats and the majority of the left today hold to a social liberalism, economically-they want more state engagement not less, its whether its Keynesianism or something else. Not laisse faire, but against libertarianism as well.

Modern conservatism-is at least on the surface social conservatism and economic liberalism. Now with Tucker Carlson and Donald Trump(or rather the people behind him) this is changing to seeing a larger role for the state.

Maybe another axis would be social liberalism/laissez faire.

and the counterpoint to laissez faire is state regulation or direction, to some extent or another.

This just isn't popular. The social liberalism is held by progressives and the economic laisse faire is still official right wing orthodoxy(current shifts notwithstanding).

So libertarian policies are either-better offered by the progressives and conservatives, and taken together economic freedom and social laxity are as a two part product-just not desirable.

Most people want one, and the reverse of the other.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Abhorsen

Local Degenerate
Moderator
Staff Member
Comrade
Osaul
@Abhorsen, the blog post reading I sent you wasn’t Sam Altman’s blog. It was Mencius Moldbug using his blog responding to Sam Altman’s blog. Moldbug basically has a similar view to Tucker Carlson - he’s a Luddite and a Mercantilist. I’ve not seen a better argument for those positions elsewhere.
Oh, I know, I just hadn't had time to read it yet (I was about to go to bed). So I read the much shorter blog that Menicius Moldberg referenced (it's linked in the blog), and at the very least, I disagree with Moldberg's title. I'll get around to the blog you sent in a while, but I have a lot of stuff to do, and I might not have the time to spend 40 minutes reading something I'm dubious I'll enjoy. The guy seems to write for a while. Could you put a summary of the guy's points instead?
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Another thing which I think contributes to Libertarian losses in elections is that they've never managed to put forward a decent candidate; I cannot think of a single one which stuck in my mind for more than a few minutes, and I was desperate to find alternatives to voting for either a Democrat or a Republican for decades.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
Another thing which I think contributes to Libertarian losses in elections is that they've never managed to put forward a decent candidate;
You wouldn't know if they did. The media deliberately no platformed Libertarian candidates. You can tell how good a libertarian's chances to get the office were by how much the media avoided talking about them.
 

The Name of Love

Far Right Nutjob
Oh, I know, I just hadn't had time to read it yet (I was about to go to bed). So I read the much shorter blog that Menicius Moldberg referenced (it's linked in the blog), and at the very least, I disagree with Moldberg's title. I'll get around to the blog you sent in a while, but I have a lot of stuff to do, and I might not have the time to spend 40 minutes reading something I'm dubious I'll enjoy. The guy seems to write for a while. Could you put a summary of the guy's points instead?
Well, Moldbug's essay begins like this:

TL;DR Sam Altman is not a blithering idiot. That’s what’s so scary. When the most elitest minds of a society are full of blithering idiocy, that society is probably doomed.

It’s normal for geniuses to be crazed. But Sam Altman (whom I don’t know, but SF is a small town and I probably know someone who knows him) isn’t a genius and he definitely isn’t crazed. He didn’t analyze any ten-dimensional gauge theory or predict any chiral axigluons. He’s just an entrepreneur, i.e., a natural leader, a commodity which especially in our present dire straits is or at least ought to be worth a whole Bolivian prison full of cocaine-tooting particle physicists.

What I find exceptionally terrifying is that Altman’s blithering idiocy looks and sounds exactly like sober good sense. Read it. You’ll agree.

This point reiterates the point of a lot of Moldbug's essays, which is that there's a difference between "consensus reality" (what the elites believe and teach peasants like us to believe) and "actual reality" (which is what Moldbug believes). In other essays, he compares the former to the Matrix and the latter to taking the Red Pill. Moldbug is credited with being the first to popularize this analogy on the right wing.

From there, Moldbug talks about whether 1953 or 2013 would be a more preferable society and comes to the conclusion that, minus the technological advancement we have now, 1953 was noticeably better. Our civilization has declined, he says, because there are less places Sam Altman would feel safe walking around with his iPad in. This is another point that Moldbug reiterates time and again in his essays: that technological progress is a mask for social decay. Civilization produces technology, so technological progress is a lagging indicator of a declining civilization. The civilization will start declining before technological progress does.

He then talks about what economic growth actually is. He examines the assumption that people spending more is good for the economy. "Why do we think this?", he asks. His answer is that we're assuming that money spent = desires being met and maximizing pleasure is good. He then explodes the logic of this worldview before substituting his own: rather than focusing on meeting people's desires, we should focus on the state ruling the people effectively. All citizens are assets of the government - in other words, they are the slaves of the government. The government is just a money-making corporation and wants to make its slaves a better asset. This, he claims, is reality.

The goal of the state is to maximize the profitability of its assets because it wants to make money. The goal of the slaves is (or rather, should be according to Moldbug's view) to be a better person. Not to maximize pleasure. This is, in my opinion, a major difference between right-wing and left-wing belief: leftists want to maximize the fulfillment of desire, rightists want to make us all better human beings. And notice, Moldbug says, that this view aligns the interests of the state with the interests of the people. The state wants to make its slaves better assets, and the slaves want to become better people, i.e. better assets. Win-win.

Upon this starting point, he talks about the tech singularity, that, eventually, robotics will make certain people completely useless. This is how he sees the Singularity coming about. He says that this is a bad thing. There are six possible solutions to this problem that he can see.
  1. Liquidate the useless assets (i.e. kill the useless people).
  2. Pay useless people to not work.
  3. Have useless people live in virtual reality.
  4. Create make-work programs for useless people.
  5. Restrict trade to create more domestic jobs for useless people.
  6. Restrict technological advancement to halt the Singularity.
After ruling out 1-4 as being either immoral or having too high costs, he advocates for a combination of solutions 5 and 6. He says that the only reason 5 and 6 seem like bad ideas is because we have such incompetent, corrupt leaders right now. Thus, nothing less than a reset of the U.S. Government would make 5 and 6 viable options. But to Moldbug, 5 and 6 are no-brainers.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top