Freedom Sucks, but it Still Matters: What Annoys Me About Libertarians, but I Still Remain One

I don't get along in groups for extended periods of time. It's always been that way, in every group or "clique" I've ever been a part of.

This is probably why a long time ago I gravitated towards the libertarian movement - due to the fact that, as a movement, it seemed to be the most geared towards individualism.

Libertarianism would feature the least amount of collective interaction possible.

I guess one might ask why is that I even feel the need to be part of an ideology or movement, and I can't answer that. It's probably a need that some of us, even most of us, just have from birth. It most likely worked as a basis for religions, too. But I can't really answer that with any type of certainty. Perhaps my ever so fragile ego just seeks some type of validation for my brilliance, and in order to get that validation, I need a group of like-minded people around me to go "Yeah, that's really smart!"

But anyways.

What tends to happen every time, and it's always the same pattern, is that I find a group that shares my views and it's awesome for a while, but little by little, as time goes on, I start to recognize certain patterns of intellectual laziness that's usually some form of what I call catchphrase-parroting. And what I mean by that is that all movements, sooner or later, seem to devolve into people repeating certain catchphrases made famous by the charismatic individuals who "founded" the movement. This requires little to no, usually no, original thought of one's own, and is just people putting themselves on autopilot. They become so sure and so convinced of the superiority of their ideology that no further thought is required, ever.

The great irony of this in the libertarian movement is the fact libertarians themselves like to champion the ideas of free thought, individualism, all that jazz. So, you'd think that the libertarian movement would be one to appreciate differing viewpoints every now and again, even and especially those that go against the accepted mainstream within the movement.

But nah.

Here's an example of what I mean:

Where I'm from, Finland, there's a really trashy "news" blog/website that focuses on the problems of immigration. Okay, I think there are loads and loads of problems with the immigration movement to Europe, so I'm game.

However, I've never been interested in supporting the site with my clicks. One big reason is the fact that they never seem to cite their sources, but another big red flag, for me, was when I noticed that those blogs were funded by two types of ads, side by side.

Ads for internet gambling, and ads for quick loans with absolutely ridiculous interest rates. The types of loans that no non-desperate, non-moronic person would ever accept. There's no reason for a normally-functioning human being to ever accept the terms of such loans. It's insane.

The fact they were advertised next to ads for internet gambling is very telling, in my opinion.

I've never had a problem with gambling, personally, but my stepdad used to, so I've seen what it can be when it gets really ugly.

Now, the libertarian argument here is that "Everybody is responsible for themselves. If someone is stupid enough to gamble on a high-interest loan, it's their problem. You should never blame the person offering the service".

And, to a point, that's absolutely true.

Let's say we live in a "free" and "decentralized" society. Shit like that will inevitably take place because the above argument is so fundamental within the whole "idea" of freedom. You can't really argue it being "wrong" if, at the same time, we accept the fact that, yes, people are responsible for themselves.

How-ever.

As an individual. As in me. As myself. The person right here writing down these thoughts that I've formulated. By myself. I find that to be disgusting. I consider it to be similar to waving a cake in front of a fat person who's on a diet. Is he or she ultimately responsible for taking a bite of that cake and failing his or her diet?

Ultimately, yes.

But is it completely out of the question to at least ponder the fact that I, through my cake-waving actions, was working in at least a morally gray area, doing my best to ensure that the fat person would fail?

I don't think it is.

I also consider it to be even more reprehensible to profit out of these people's life-ruining issues.

And I know, I know, someone's going to throw the ole doctor card at me:

"But @schattenjaeger, what about doctors? Hah! You never saw that coming, did ya! Doctors profit out of things like cancer! How do you like THEM APPLES! I'm so clever!"

It's true that one of the best ways to profit in capitalism is to profit off of people's problems, by offering a service that fixes said problem. Doctors are a good example of this. They specifically make money out of the fact that people have cancer, or a broken foot, or anal bleeding, or I dunno, whatever.

But I think it's fair to say that offering a fix is still morally easier to justify than profiting off of pushing someone even deeper into the abyss.

Don't you?

Think before answering, really. Don't just think about what your mighty libertarian leaders would say, think for yourself.

Is there a difference?

Let's continue.

Bringing something like that up very rarely leads to any kind of fruitful conversation with fellow libertarians. As in discussion about actions that are within the confines of the two libertarian rules - those being "thou shalt not physically harm" and "thou shalt not steal" - but still in an area that's at least morally questionable.

If you know, for a fact, that what you're doing is more than likely going to cause another person to cause harm for him or herself, is it an okay thing to do, even if we remain libertarian?'

"Yeah, but it doesn't break self-ownership, so it can't be wrong."

I guess that statement can't really be argued against, in a libertarian context. But I find it funny how so many libertarians just reside to using a few chosen mantras as a crutch, and opting for intellectual laziness, instead of forming their own values.

I mean, it's not like libertarianism means you can't have your own individual values. I always thought that libertarianism as a movement was all about that. I may have said that above already, but I took a nap in-between, so I have no idea. And I'm not going to read through my ramblings, no way.

I was just always under the impression that boycotting something because you find it harmful or against your beliefs of what constitutes a good society was the very center of libertarianism, but I dunno, I guess not.

Because there sure is a huge section of people ready to justify anything that a company or corporation does because, well, it doesn't break the free market principle.

As long as you don't harm people physically or steal from them, nothing is worth paying attention to.

Let's take something like YouTube.

YouTube has been on a deletion spree as of late. It seems like all a video has to do these days is to mention "refugees" and the video is instantly demonetized, and may even be hidden altogether.

A lot videos with valuable information are being hidden away, in the name of a political agenda.

Try to air your frustrations about this to a libertarian, I dare you.

"YouTube is a private company and it has the right, under free market rules, to do what it wants."

I know, but how do you feel about it?

"YouTube is a private company and..."

I know, but how do you feel about it? Personally.

"YouTube is a private company and..."

See what I mean?

It never goes anywhere. The reason it never goes anywhere is simply because an ideology, for so many people, is an excuse to stop thinking. Ideological catchphrases like "Taxation is theft" become religious preachings and dogmas.

I'm not exaggerating at all when I say that I've gotten stuff like the "A private company has the right to do stuff in a free market" from people that know I've been a libertarian for years.

As if, somehow, I'm not aware of one of the main principles of that ideology.

It's just that, to me, it shouldn't mean that I simply stop paying attention to what's happening around me. Everything should be questioned, at all times. The moment you stop being open for questioning, is the moment you become a puppet that someone smarter than you can use and manipulate.

Honest to God, I've had more fruitful conversations about life, society, and philosophy with my girlfriend who's pretty much a leftist, and not at all libertarian. In fact, she actively against the idea of libertarianism.

Yet our conversations are awesome. Why? Because she thinks for herself and is not an annoying parrot. She listens, asks, questions and replies. The way conversations are usually supposed to function. She's not annoyingly religious in her thoughts and ideas.

Oh and indeed speaking of religion.

I've made the case over the past few years that religion never went away. As a European, I've seen the culture turn into all but completely secular, as traditional religions have been losing a lot of ground. Most of it, in fact.

It's still naive to assume that just because people stopped believing in God that they all of a sudden stopped being religious.

Religion was such a huge part of people's lives for so long, it seems logical to make the assumption that there surely is a mechanism in our brains that caused religion and religiosity.

And even though religion went away, our brains never changed.

I think it's rather obvious that whatever mechanism used to cause religions back in the day, will continue to manifest itself in different ways.

We can see this with modern day left wingers very clearly: the State has replaced God, racists and sexists are the new witches, and the terminology surrounding it has changed, but it's still very much a religion. They have their teachings, their dogmas, their priests, and everything that used to make up a religion back in the day.

But the same can be said about libertarians, as well.

So often I've scrolled through the comments under posts by famous libertarian celebrities on Facebook, and seen nothing but sheep.

Sheep parroting the catchphrases, the teachings, the tired old dogmas that everybody's recited time and time and time again.

I may agree with some of the catchphrases. Hell, I still consider myself a libertarian, but the irony is so sharp when watching such sheepish and collectivist behavior from the very people whose entire ideology is supposed to be against that.

Just find it jocular chucklesome, that's all.

The thing that most libertarians seem to be missing is my actual point here. Yes, it took me almost 2,000 words of nonsensical and drawn-out tangents to get to what my actual point is. But let's face it: you need to stretch out your posts on Steemit in order to get noticed. If I just make a short point, it's not considered worthy of an upvote.

So. With the above out of the way. Yes, there is a point. And thank God for that. Otherwise, I just might talk about my feelings, or something.

What libertarians miss all the time, constantly, is that a free society is actually one that requires the most work to maintain.

That doesn't seem like such a revelation at first glance, but it is.

Libertarians have this weird idea that once a society becomes "free" it's simply ready and up and rolling. Nothing needs to be done, nothing needs to be maintained. It's free and everything is perfect.

I feel this couldn't be further from the truth, since in order for a society to remain functional, while free, work needs to be done, and the need for work never stops.

That's the responsibility we should be ready to take upon ourselves if we are to aim for freedom.

And who's going to do the work in a free society? You. Once the state is out of the way, you can't count on "someone else" doing stuff, it's going to be you. It's going to be me, your neighbor, his neighbor, their neighbor. Stan who sells popcorn in the 15th row at every Blackhawks game.

Yeah, him. I know Stan's a little fishy, but it's going to be up to him, as well.

The invisible hand is just a metaphor; society always consists of people, and it's the people who make up the invisible hand.

That invisible hand can better people's lives, or it can strangle them. There's really no guarantee.

That's the pesky thing about freedom, isn't it?

I often come across the attitude of "Well, someone will take care of it" whenever discussing liberty with libertarians. The one thing that should be their specialty.

Hell, just look at Steemit. This right here is a decentralized experience in freedom. And it's a mess. No one agrees on everything, except the fact that "Someone definitely should do something".

And it's to be expected, it's natural.

But it does showcase how, in many ways, we're not ready yet, as a species, to really, honestly, sincerely embrace freedom. It takes work. And not everybody is ready to take on that work. Some are, and God bless them if there is such a thing.

In the past maybe a year or so, I've been more critical of libertarians and libertarianism - moreso libertarians themselves, though - than I've been supportive of them.

This undoubtedly begs the question of why. Why do I still consider myself a libertarian if I never really do anything other than bitch about them?

Because still, despite everything, freedom matters.

There's the argument of the free market creating the most prosperity for everyone and all that, but I don't even mean that.

It matters because freedom is the only thing that allows for conversations like this to even take place.

That's why it bugs me so much to see so many libertarians squander it simply by leaning on memorized and pre-chewed arguments when it's the exact opposite that should be taking place.

What freedom is, ideally, is a marketplace of ideas. And that marketplace will never take place if people simply pre-choose everything to believe in from the get-go and shun those who dare question the narrative set in stone by the High Priest.

Don't become a religion. Please.

Only a zealot assumes he has all the answers.

Was there a point? I dunno, maybe not. Maybe there used to be, but it got lost in translation. Maybe it ran away to chase a shadow that may or may not have been a stray camel at some point, I can't really tell you.

If you made it through this rant, please don't tell me how, I find that disturbing.

Until next time.