io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 2:35 AM
Wed Nov 11
27 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/10/09
Everyone who openly aligns themselves with a political ideology (if only for simplicity sake) take an attitude of intellectual superiority, but Libertarians seem to especially obnoxious.
At least when you're talking about far-right, conservatives (the current face of the GOP?), you can settle on fundamental differences in ideology and walk away, when you have something as all over the place and not exactly distasteful (in theory) you're constantly left saying "that's sounds great, but..." and then you have to just decide that either the person is incapable of critical thought, or intellectually dishonest to the point of lying about what they, themselves, actually think is a good idea.
The part that gets to me the most is basing an ideological concept (I understand it pre-dates her work, but I mean specifically regarding modern Libertarians) on a writer as childish and downright bad as Ayn Rand.
08/10/09
The question of "What is libertarianism?" keeps coming up for me, and I'm glad to see it's come up here. Naturally, true believers will tell you that libertarianism is, alternately, whatever they say it is or whatever the Founding Fathers believed, but it's not so simple. The first answer is obviously absurd, and the second ignores that the Founders had diverse opinions, not all of which mesh with modern post-industrial capitalism (big surprise, right?). Was Jefferson's agrarian republic more libertarian than Hamilton's industrialized, urban centralism? Who is to say? Applying modern political stances to the hundreds-of-years-old past is doomed to failure, if you ask me. We might look for inspiration, but there are no analogues.
So where does libertarianism come from? What is it? Well, my personal libertarianism harks back to 1930s Spain, because I'm a fan of direct ownership and economic rights and, generally, a left anarchist. But "libertarianism" as we use it means something very specific, usually in an American context (they often use "liberal" abroad, I understand, which must confuse folks), that developed out of the Second World War. It has parts of the anti-FDR coalition as well as new heterodox strains of thought that came over from Europe. It is both homegrown and hybrid. It can be ignorant or urbane. It finds support in both anti-authoritarian and establishment thought. Nowhere else will you see folks quote Thoreau and Hamilton in the same breath. It's associated with Heinlein, to its benefit and to his simplification (he had a lot of ideas, though I don't believe he ever rejected the label). Isolationists and peaceniks may alike be found in its ranks, and recently they've become quite a bit more interventionist, with several public figures embracing the formerly-called War on Terror. G8 protesters and Randian evangelists alike. Glenn Beck fans and supporters of single-payer healthcare. Whenever I meet a libertarian, I ask what precisely he or she believes. "Libertarian," personally speaking, tells me nothing about that person's stance.
That libertarians have hardly ever held power, and almost never as libertarians in name, only helps this confusion. I know staunch pro-choice folks who pulled for Ron Paul, not knowing or forgiving his positions on abortion because of his thoughts on other matters. I won't interpret their rationality; most of us prioritize our political goals. I just mention it as one more split that libertarianism can't address, because it is little more than a jumble of associated stances. It means as much as liberalism and conservatism, but as those latter camps at least have histories of governance, one can directly assail them. Taking on libertarianism is like taking on smoke; it does not cohere in the same way as other political "movements." It has no community, no caucus. Its party is not widely held as a mouthpiece, because libertarians are as likely to work through the two-party system or reject it entirely than start up their own.
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/10/09
08/09/09
It's a free market, so I'm sure he won't mind when 51% of the population decides not to use his product since he believes that their ability to vote has ruined America.
08/09/09
08/09/09
08/10/09
08/09/09
The trouble with all of them is that they all make that same jump, the part about how it will all work out just fine so long as everyone follows the philosophy. I find this kind of naivete almost charming. It's kind of like a little girl's tea party. It's very pleasant, but the moment her little brother gets bored or wants to play GI Joes, it all starts to fall apart. The problem is that one person's Utopia is another person's Dystopia.
It's no wonder that most utopian visions have to take some time out to dwell on how to make sure everybody follows the plan. Whether it's imagining rows of smiling youths accepting everything they're taught about how perfect their society is, or propoganda is bent towards creating the aspirational ideal person who loves that society such as the "New Soviet Man" or the person motivated by enlightened self interest who never makes mistakes based on any of the numerous passions, foibles, or problems that plague real people.
The truth is, we have to live with all the other people who disagree with our version of perfection. Compromises have to be made, though we can take bits from all across the spectrum. No one ends up happy, and that's one of the great wonders of human life. Because that desire to find that perfect world is part of what keeps driving us all forward. "Everybody dies frustrated inside, and that is beautiful", as They Might Be Giants says.
The wacky thing is, I was introduced to the idea of creating the people for your utopia by Masamune Shirow's cyberpunk manga "Appleseed" I know it's all "Ghost in the Shell" these days, but I always thought that was a stronger work. When Deunan realizes that the majority of the people in the perfect city of Olympus are really genetically altered clones made to live in the city, she's stunned, and comes to think of Olympus as a perfectly constructed toy.
08/10/09
Dude, I just wrote a comment that was more like a pamphlet, so I'm in the same camp as far as chattiness.
I'd like to second that the purity thing has come up several times. It's common enough in political discussions, but libertarians always seem particularly affronted by it, or use it as an excuse. "Well, that's not pure libertarianism," and so on. It's like talking to an orthodox Marxist. The conditions are never pure; all revolutions are heterogeneous. Even Lenin understood that. So, given that people are inconsistent and messy, what will work? Nothing that insists on unanimity of vision. Secession might work, but otherwise, you're going to have to work with hybrid systems.
08/09/09
What is a libertarian? A libertarian is someone who lives in a community where he enjoys the protection of police and fire department, drives on public roads, sends his kids to public school and then complains that he has to pay taxes.
Which I thought was interesting.
08/09/09
08/09/09
Yes, Libertarians are naive fools who somehow think Feudalism was a brilliant idea.
08/09/09
As for why libertarianism is an appealing point of view, some people happen to agree with the role of government as laid out by the Constitution, in that it's only real responsibility is to provide citizens protection from foreign invasion, etc etc. These same people take exception at being expected to pay for the poor choices of others, when most of us are a little busy dealing with our own choices. Two sorts of people have a hard time understanding that mindset: those who stand to directly benefit from enhanced government benefits, or those who go through life with deep seated guilt for the good fortunes they've received. To the former, a libertarian says "get a job," and to the latter, they say "what, you've never heard of community service and volunteering?"
On some things, I understand where libertarians are coming from, although I prefer a balance, and believe the state does have a role to play in balancing out the ambitions of the private sector. The problem is, and this has been pointed out throughout history, who or what forces balance out the government's ambitions? The level of public scrutiny has not matched the level of Government control for a long, long time, and to those who have studied the past, or dealt with corrupt regimes first-hand, this is a frightening situation our country currently faces.
So what is appealing about libertarianism? The same thing some find appealing in liberalism: balance. Nothing more, nothing less. They are simply the other side of the scale, the control group who see the glass as half full, where the other sees it as half empty. To mock the person, and to belittle the ideal without logically confronting it with clear and valid points, serves only to weaken the validity of your own points of view. If you are honestly curious about the political changes that took place in the 20's and 30's, and where the opposition to a nanny state came from, I recommend reading Amity Shlaes "The Forgotten Man."
08/09/09
Well in a democratic system, it's suppose to be the people being represented by that sytsem. Ideally an educated people. Now we see how well that is currently working out. My question to the libertarian would be, exactly how do they think their version of the system would work any better when it's painfully obvious that the problem isn't with governmental systems but with the people who run them.
True liberty can only be achieved with the barrel of a gun, the same gun that is at the hart of it's oppression to begin with.
To keep this discussion in the spirit of io9, read God Emperor of Dune by Frank Herbert for an insightful and entertaining discussion on such things. :D
08/09/09
i know a bunch of libertarians, and some of them strike me as reasonable, and some of them are unreasonable along the axis of "fuck you, i've got mine"
there is a country where one can live free from the meddling influence of an oppresive government. it's somalia. i look forward to somalia's ascendence as a shining beacon of libertopia.
08/09/09
Libertarians are the folks who want to liberate themselves from government, but still want to be YOUR boss.
08/09/09
Guy#1 "What is a libertarian exactly?"
Guy#2 "A libertarian is an anarchist with a hard-on for capitalism."
08/09/09
08/09/09
08/09/09
08/09/09
08/09/09
08/09/09
08/09/09
08/09/09
Nonetheless, I'd like to give it a fair shot, and hear what a more mature adult can say to justify libertarianism as a legitimate position.
08/09/09
Yes, some of those responding to my comment will just go ahead and take shots at libertarianism, but at the very least, I am genuinely interested in listening to what libertarians have to say, and I have no intentions of just dismissing them.
08/09/09
No, that's not it. How about "the leadership of the right understands human nature just well enough to profit by it and the rest of them get profited by."
No, still not right. Maybe I suck at aphorisms. But I still think I'm right about those libertarians. The serious ones I've met are smart in an engineering sense, but really don't get what would result from a stateless, um ... state?
08/09/09
08/09/09
I think they believe in a sort of enlightened self interest. If everybody is honest and takes care of themselves, everything will be fine. Nobody tries to take unfair advantage and if they do, the system ostracizes them and lets them fend for themselves, without a societies support. Doesn't work in practice for obvious reasons.
The quote above seems like same old same old. Pining for better, simpler times that were neither better nor simpler.
08/09/09
For most libertarians, it's about being left alone by the government. A good example: many states are implementing mandatory seatbelt laws. Libertarians would say that we don't need our government to act like our mothers. In a free society, as the US supposedly is, your freedom goes until it infringes on the freedom of someone else. I won't pretend that there's no grey area in most cases.
Most libertarians are quite comfortable living with taxes... just not with how much tax money is taken from them, just to be squandered.
Thoreau said "That government is best which governs least."
08/09/09
08/09/09
The trouble with libertarianism, and the reason I don't subscribe to it myself, is its radical economic fundamentalism. The fact is that socialism and capitalism are not the opposites we're told to believe they are. They're just different endpoints on a continuum, one with an emphasis on the individual, the other with an emphasis on society. The fundamental mistake of libertarians is to assume that capitalism is inherently decentralized, but a quick look at the hierarchical structure of any modern corporation can bring to mind, at least to me, the same inherent structure as the Soviet Union or a medieval city-state.
08/15/09
I am, of course, excluding that which falls under the heading of "national security", although the public benefit of those matters is dubious as well.
I'm not really sure who you mean by "the weak" or in what respect they'd be getting comeuppance. I guess I'd need an example. In terms of economics, Ayn-Rand-style barrier-free markets have proved their worthlessness in a world of enlessly inventive people. Most libertarians of my acquaintance are very moderate, and keen on corporate accountability.
08/09/09
08/09/09
03/29/09
"Self-selected" is a term that means nothing. There's no such thing as "self-selected". You "select" something. You're already a self. It's just "selected".
I really hate thinkers who make up nonsensical terms.