Libertarians Beware
It's not too hard to understand why a political philosophy that contains the word "liberty" has become so popular. Who doesn't want to be free? The problem is that most people don't understand that freedom, or indeed liberty, is not something that can be gained individually, at least not if the goal is for everyone to be free.
source: YouTube
Personally I hold the rather extreme position that freedom doesn't really exist, and therefore find it rather useless to even talk about it. I always say that if you want to be free, you need to find an island for yourself to live on, and even then you'll have to adjust to the other creatures on that island; freedom is found in the world around you, not within you, and if the world around you is full of other humans, than that's where you'll find it. Or not. Mostly not. Not in the capitalist, free market world that is our current reality. Most libertarians nowadays believe in laissez-faire capitalism without a state, without understanding the inherent contradiction in that belief. You see, "the state" with its monopoly on the use of violence is invented by and for capitalists, and is the result of a system based on the accumulation of private property; having lots of private property is equal to having lots of power, because all that private property needs lots of protection by an institution that has a monopoly on the use of violence. If you can follow the circular reasoning in that sentence, you're one step closer to understanding why this modern notion of libertarianism is a bunch of nonsense, and why anarcho-capitalism suffers from the same internal contradiction.
Originally, libertarianism was a leftist political philosophy associated with libertarian communists and libertarian socialists who seek to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production; all who understand that large amounts of accumulated private property goes hand in hand with immense power, understand that private property is the main barrier to liberty and freedom. The fact that those individuals who have lots of private property are the ones who are the most free among us explains why they are the ones who benefit most from keeping the delusional right-wing version of libertarianism alive. There's no such thing as a free market in a civilized world; the mere restriction on what can and can not be traded, humans for example, makes the market not free. An-caps believe in something that's simply not realistic, which is why I'll close today's short post with an invitation to watch the below linked video. It's a fun, in my opinion at least, dunking on those modern libertarians who take some legitimate political, social and economical concerns, and subsequently attach a bunch of completely wrong solutions to them, often descending in white nationalism, xenophobia and calling for more of the very politics that caused the legitimate concerns in the first place. So while it's a fun watch, it's important to keep in mind that these right-wing ideologies based on extreme individualism and individual freedom are in fact dangerous...
Pointlessly Dunking on Libertarians to Cheer Up My Friends During These Hard Times
Thanks so much for visiting my blog and reading my posts dear reader, I appreciate that a lot :-) If you like my content, please consider leaving a comment, upvote or resteem. I'll be back here tomorrow and sincerely hope you'll join me. Until then, keep safe, keep healthy!
Recent articles you might be interested in:
| Latest article >>>>>>>>>>> | Sick & Tired |
|---|---|
| Mendacium Omnipraesens | Is Looting Ever Justifiable? |
| Bury The Hatchet | Ordo Ab Chao |
| Liar Liar, Nation On Fire | It's Here..! |
Thanks for stopping by and reading. If you really liked this content, if you disagree (or if you do agree), please leave a comment. Of course, upvotes, follows, resteems are all greatly appreciated, but nothing brings me and you more growth than sharing our ideas.
Indeed, markets are not capitalism; there's even such a thing as "market socialism". Libertarianism however, the modern interpretation of it, has free market capitalism at its core. Capitalism itself is mainly a mode of production where the means of production are privately owned.
"Freedom" is the default state of existence. It takes other humans using force to stop that freedom.
The criticism of the state using force for property is illusory as ALL property rights in any system is always maintained by the use of defensive force against any person or thing that would try to take or destroy it.
Without a foundation of ethics rooted in consent, any kind of political scheme can be rationalized using sophistry by abdicating the core, universal ethical principle that all people want their own consent respected, starting with their body.
I would recommend you start with the discourse of the, "Compared to what," because you do not have a comparative for an ethical better in your criticism.
It is a certainty that, if you proffered it, you would end up falling to the exact same criticisms you levy.
Read:
https://vassociation.com/guiding-principles-and-directives/
and watch:
Sure, agreed. In your experience, who are those other humans? Or are you of the opinion that your freedom (the default state of human existence) isn't impeded at all?
Not illusory at all; the fact that we all defend our property in any system doesn't mean that the state's defending of the property of its most powerful "subjects" somehow doesn't exist. It also doesn't mean that all systems, real or in theory, infringe upon its participants' freedom in the same degree as our current system that inherently creates a small group that has almost all property that needs protecting.
Again, agreed. The core of this statement is in the words "ethics" and "consent"; now ask yourself, where are consent and ethics found, where do we get them from?
Ah, I sense an equivocation between "one's own consent" and "one's own property"; if that's indeed what you're saying here, you might want to rethink. Also: is your body your "property", or might we simply (and correctly) state that your body is in part what you are?
Nice response, thanks for that :-) I just don't see how or why it's a refutation of anything I've said in this post.
Lo que tu mencionas en tu post, es cierto la libertad no existe realmente, ningún país lo posee.