The Kids Are All Libertarian

[cynicles]

Apparently the next generation is America is going to be worst then the last.

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/the-kids-are-all-libertarians

[Tim Cornelis]

Not necessarily, may be--and I suspect this is the case--young right-wingers are basically switching from conservatism to right-wing libertarianism.

[JPSartre12]

Well, I'd rather see them develop a little bit of class consciousness and join us Lefties.

I was vaguely libertarian before I woke up and joined the left-wing fun train. At least identifying as a libertarian breaks them out of the liberal-conservative binary and makes them think about things differently. If we plug away at them enough and try to persuade them, I'm sure we can recruit a couple.

[cynicles]

I don't know, American youth don't have much of the radical conciousness fresh in their brains the way other youth around the world do. The closest thing they had was the 60s, which basically produced a generation of reaganites, these guys are positioning themselves to be worse. Maybe it'll be a good lesson learned.

[Positivist]

Nope, bullshit, most kids don't can't grasp any political meaning at all. Its more like a desire for an alternative to liberalism and conservatism, combined with a desire for legal weed. And if they want to try out libertarian capitalism, let them, the proletarian revolution will be a few months later.

[milkmiku]

desire for legal weed.
Judging from their pictures, I'd assume this is the priamry concern they have.

[mew]

i'm not surprised... in my high school and college classes it wasn't uncommon to hear libertarian POVs, even in classes that you think would be full of liberals/leftists (higher level racial theory classes etc.)

i wonder if for some young people libertarianism is a manifestation of unhappiness with both parties + a desire to appear/feel radical but without the "naive kid"/"moonbat" stigma that comes with being a leftist.

[ed miliband]

i wonder if for some young people libertarianism is a manifestation of unhappiness with both parties + a desire to appear/feel radical but without the "naive kid"/"moonbat" stigma that comes with being a leftist.

yup, this... i'd add not having to work long hours on minimum wage, or experiencing unemployment, etc.

[campesino]

most young'uns are right-libertarians, because as a youth, one strives for freedom and independence and wealth. Combine that with a media that promote the government as a usurper of freedoms and taxation as theft. We get libertarians. Right-wing libertarianism is insanely simple and anybody can understand it, so it gives those who hold its views the feeling of being more 'enlightened,' also it is alternative so it gives a feeling of being above the liberal-conservative fray. Also socially taught selfish-ness and being told you are special(all the way from kindergarten to middle school does give someone the feeling of being superior) makes people more self-centered and steer to ideologies that promote the individual and its liberty as the highest vale.

I wouldn't place too much hope on right-wing libertarians becoming class conscious.

Nothing about its ideology steers it adherents to Marxism.

It says all humans are equal, and everyone has the same chance, material conditions can be overridden by ideas. so:

not much acknowledgement of class.
idealist.
blind to the plight of those born into bad material conditions.
selfish, as long as someone can become rich, the fact that others have to work to maintain a rich man doesn't matter.
believe the only coercion is state coercion.
reinforces classes, by teaching that the rights over the means of production are a function of one's ability to 'work hard, be smart, not be stupid and do drugs, work ethic' instead of the Marxist truth which is material conditions.
Blames the poor 'the poor choose to be poor, anybody can be rich if they try hard enough'

[mew]

yeah i knew someone (a young person) who actively bragged and acted really haughtily about not going on food stamps even though it meant semi-starving themselves when they lost their job...

[ed miliband]

i don't think "selfishness" is a good explanation though, unless there is some distinction between selfishness and self-interest that i'm missing. if only workers were a little more selfish...

[milkmiku]

Question, What exactly is the popular libertarian stance these days? Is it really weed, privatize the ocean, no taxes, and "small" goverment?

[Os Cangaceiros]

At least libertarian activists don't like the police and actively troll them. I can definitely respect that.

Plus, y'know, the news that the government can now legally kill you without a trial, can spy on literally every piece of your correspondence and your every movement pretty much with total impunity, can continue to occupy/destroy foreign nations even with a noble peace prize winner like Obama at the helm...I'm sure these things also make people take libertarian stances.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Y'know what? Libertarian economics are dumb, I work in an industry which, if libertarian principles were applied, would be a barren wasteland. There is absolutely no doubt about that in my mind, the privatization of every single thing would be a nightmarish world IMO.

BUT, on the other hand, I actually completely see what's so appealing about libertarianism. It's telling figures in power to go fuck themselves. Even though American libertarianism is terribly blind to private power, so it's mostly just about telling government bureaucrats to go fuck themselves. But I agree, I hate the worthless sacks of shit who occupy our police departments, and congress, and every branch of every legislature and the White House. Those assholes can sit and spin.

[milkmiku]

the news that the government can now legally kill you without a trial, can spy on literally every piece of your correspondence and your every movement pretty much with total impunity, can continue to occupy/destroy foreign nations even with a noble peace prize winner like Obama at the helm...I'm sure these things also make people take libertarian stances.


That sounds like a crazy neo nazi conspericy theroy!

[¿Que?]

Part of the problem I think comes from the way libertarianism panders to an "informed" audience. By informed, I simply mean, people who don't just tow a straight Dems versus Repubs line. They often couch their rhetoric in popular secular language, such as The Reason Institute, and Ayn Rand's Objectivism, to name just to examples. The young follow what traditionally have been the signposts for liberals and radical lefties: anti-authoritarianism, anti-war, freedom and liberties associated with consumption (legalize it!), more relaxed attitudes on social issues, and even secularism. What's happening is a slight of hand. Once they come to realize the premises, they are then pulled the old switcharoo, and are thus herded like cattle into the group/double think ideology of US libertarianism.

Then you have people like Ron Paul who do a lot of the "public intellectual" work of US libertarians. Never mind that he is in fact a Republican, and that he is actually quite against the fray in a few issues, most notably his opposition to abortion. Paul's popularity has given libertarianism more legitimacy, and has drawn many into the common sense logic of this philosophy.

Ultimately, though, it makes little sense to me why any working class person, for example the guy working at a restaurant, would think it is in his/her interest to cut back on economic regulations and labor laws. Do they think the weekend and 40 hour week are laws of nature? Fundamentally, I think they think that people will not buy or work at businesses that have unjust labor practices. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works. I forget the name, but there are in most industries, organizations which represent the whole industry, in spite of the competition within the industry. They often set prices and agree on other things to make it fair for everyone in the industry. Who is to prevent these organizations for setting the work week, wages and pay, benefits etc amongst themselves, leaving no possible alternative for consumers and workers?

[campesino]

Ultimately, though, it makes little sense to me why any working class person, for example the guy working at a restaurant, would think it is in his/her interest to cut back on economic regulations and labor laws.

that worker sees himself as an individual, an individual who can have great life, become successful if it weren't for the dern:
government
big banks
taxes
politicians

it creates an idea of the self as an individual who owes nothing to anybody and needs no help, one of their big phrases is 'i never got any handouts'
they believe they have the potential to be rich and 'unfair' society is holding them back.

basically the restaurant worker thinks he's a a future thousandaire waiting to happen, and that 'liberty, small government, and low taxes' will help that happen, because the culture says freedom and liberty are the greatest things ever and they are our american values the core of the american system and any good american supports this.

of course a class conscious worker would never believe such ideas.

[JPSartre12]

That sounds like a crazy neo nazi conspericy theroy!

Or it could be the result of the National Defense Authorization Act, the U.S.P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act (the "anti-Occupy Act"), the increased usage of drones, the UN small arms treaty, not doing much about Gitmo, etc ....

I don't think that Obama has the best track record when it comes to human rights.

[RRRevolution]

That sounds like a crazy neo nazi conspericy theroy!that stuff is not even hidden, though.

[milkmiku]

I was being sarcastic about the crazy neo nazi stuff.

[helot]

I enjoy using their non-aggression principle with a little bit of history as a justification for communism. The confusion it causes them is priceless. The entire philosophy of this libertarianism is idiotic anyway. Their premises don't logically follow onto their conclusions.

Their rugged individualism irritates me as well, as does their undeserved arrogance.


Reminds me of a previous debate i got into with one of them before. I was claiming that it's unscientific and ahistorical and i was faced with a brilliant rebuke, that because they reject empiricism that means it's somehow scientific.

[Ocean Seal]

Can I be very honest. I hated lolbertarians too a while back, but now I just see them as pretty harmless racist sexist internet losers. Which I guess is better than racist sexist activist losers.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well first of all, I hardly think that the two anecdotal examples of young professionals represents the thinking of the majority of youth today - maybe just out of college wannabe professionals, but then that trend has been in existence at least since the 1990s in its modern form. Still the larger electoral trend the article talks about is worth looking at.

It also shouldn't be all that surprising that people who've grown up over the last 30 years of massively dominant neo-liberal thinking and low class struggle - especially people who don't have easy or automatic access to collective class struggle (such as professionals) - have a cynical reaction to their disatisfaction with the system in its current state. They've grown up only knowing times of cuts to the welfare state and so they have either internalized the arguments about "government always being bad" or they've experienced schools that have had budget slashes, poor medical access, and so on. At the same time politicians were slashing social services they made arguments about how inefficient these institutions are... creating a sort of self-fufiling cycle of cuts justified by "poor services" leading to poorer services leading to increased credibility to their original arguments. It creates the sense that there are no alternatives to poorly run and alienating government institutions and privatized ones.

An increase in class struggle could easily reverse this - among some of the middle class there would be increased polarization and opposition to worker's movements, but among people dissatisfied with the way things are, there would be some that are convinced that actually struggle, collective struggle, could lead to a better situation.

The college-types that have become more drawn to vague libertarian rhetoric and ideas (probably not the hard-core ideologues) over the last generation are probably the same sort of people who could have become drawn to the left in the 60s and 70s because the civil rights movement and anti-imperialist struggles around the world presented an alternative, in their view, to both the mainstream as well as the "old CP Left".

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Still better than republicans :)

[Blackburn]

What is most disturbing is all the people on this forum that are partial to what Libertarians yammer about, and yet are quite happy to blast Liberals and reformists.

It's frightening how many here have a 'Libertarian' past.

Libertarians are the worst kind of Conservative. They are the ultra philosophy for the privileged white male. Their idea of no war doesn't extend from a dislike of war, rather a fiscal concern couched in ideology. Which is an extension of the ignorance and privilege of US isolationism. In Australia the ideology was unheard of until the Bush years of internet and conspiracy theorists.

How many angry pro-violence anarchists here that spend 80% of their posts bashing modern liberals will one day wake up and 'suddenly' identify as Libertarian.

Maybe the problem isn't the liberals, maybe the problem is the radicals here that have a much deeper identity crisis.

[Gman]

Not all kids are libertarians. I mean jesus, look at "we are 99%!"


I think that so called Libertarianism has a certain appeal to younger people with conservative parents. Essentially they group up being indoctrinated with neo-liberalism and anti-obama/democrat ideology couples with american jingoism. Legalized pot is just icing on the cake. I don't think they will be libertarians when they grow up... they're really just tomorrow's conservatives.

Don't fret though older comrades.... I do my best to spread class consciousness within my high school :lol:

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

They are the ultra philosophy for the privileged white male. Their idea of no war doesn't extend from a dislike of war, rather a fiscal concern couched in ideology. Which is an extension of the ignorance and privilege of US isolationism.

This may be true regarding some libertarians, that their opposition to war is based on fiscal grounds (though I'd disagree). But wouldn't the pro-war neocons still be a "worse kind of conservative" since they're pro-war for any reason?

I agree with what has been said by many others in this thread, that the young people who become libertarians ended up their by the drum to war that has been beaten by both parties, the huge subsidies given to private industries, especially banks, which were supported overwhelmingly by both major parties, and the assault on civil liberties such as PATRIOT/SOPA/PIPA/Terrorism "Kill whoever we feel like" Defense Act as well as popular issues like the increased crackdown on marijuana for example.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Y'know what? Libertarian economics are dumb, I work in an industry which, if libertarian principles were applied, would be a barren wasteland. There is absolutely no doubt about that in my mind, the privatization of every single thing would be a nightmarish world IMO.

BUT, on the other hand, I actually completely see what's so appealing about libertarianism. It's telling figures in power to go fuck themselves. Even though American libertarianism is terribly blind to private power, so it's mostly just about telling government bureaucrats to go fuck themselves. But I agree, I hate the worthless sacks of shit who occupy our police departments, and congress, and every branch of every legislature and the White House. Those assholes can sit and spin.

Most libertarian types I know are quite fond of the police.

[Commiekirby]

As a "young person" I can't fully agree with all of the younger generations typically being always "dumber" or just completely selfish and unconscious to radical left-wing policies as I myself don't like moderate government and nor do my closer friends who lean to the left.

It is very common for politics like Libertarianism to be popular for the many selfish things already stated and because it's such a dulled down and fad based belief. But the main component of that mindset is the status quo of our current society perpetuating that closed mind which shuns Socialist ideas in favor of individual profit (A very Gen-X idea fueled by rampant Conservatism.) and the ideas rarely get out into the open due to this, the new generations have to be taught young to think for themselves and outside the norm.

Going on the assumption they're all horrible doesn't get a single thing done.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Part of the problem I think comes from the way libertarianism panders to an "informed" audience. By informed, I simply mean, people who don't just tow a straight Dems versus Repubs line. They often couch their rhetoric in popular secular language, such as The Reason Institute, and Ayn Rand's Objectivism, to name just to examples. The young follow what traditionally have been the signposts for liberals and radical lefties: anti-authoritarianism, anti-war, freedom and liberties associated with consumption (legalize it!), more relaxed attitudes on social issues, and even secularism. What's happening is a slight of hand. Once they come to realize the premises, they are then pulled the old switcharoo, and are thus herded like cattle into the group/double think ideology of US libertarianism.

Then you have people like Ron Paul who do a lot of the "public intellectual" work of US libertarians. Never mind that he is in fact a Republican, and that he is actually quite against the fray in a few issues, most notably his opposition to abortion. Paul's popularity has given libertarianism more legitimacy, and has drawn many into the common sense logic of this philosophy.

Ultimately, though, it makes little sense to me why any working class person, for example the guy working at a restaurant, would think it is in his/her interest to cut back on economic regulations and labor laws. Do they think the weekend and 40 hour week are laws of nature? Fundamentally, I think they think that people will not buy or work at businesses that have unjust labor practices. Unfortunately, that's not the way it works. I forget the name, but there are in most industries, organizations which represent the whole industry, in spite of the competition within the industry. They often set prices and agree on other things to make it fair for everyone in the industry. Who is to prevent these organizations for setting the work week, wages and pay, benefits etc amongst themselves, leaving no possible alternative for consumers and workers?
Emphasis mine: In my experience, 9/10 times that's the argument they actually use. They ignore trends of market centralization and monopolies that contradict their own hypotheses ("that won't exist without government charter! competition!") in favor of rigid adherence to their party line ("All hail the free market! A monopoly of force is evil!")

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I have had numerous discussions with libertarians. A lot to most of them are actually quite alright and do not piss their pants when you tell them you are a marxist. But these are people who traditionally have been won by the communist movement, it's just that they are so brainwashed by illogical capitalist fallacies that "markets" are a magical unicorn and some other things... Libertarians really should be ours:bored:

[Rafiq]

You know, how in the old days they used to say something along the lines of "Young Leftists are Naive, and will grow to be Cold, rational conservatives when they're older"? In today's times, it is the opposite, I suspect (And this is a good thing). Libertarianism, which is common among modern Youth, among annoying little brats, is nothing more than the naivity of a common child. It's today's Utopia, it is, as Neoliberalism is, a sign of capitalism in decline.

Of course, I can be wrong. We can come to the conclusion that it's a dangerous sign of zero level class consciousness, just as growing Fascism among youth in the 20th century signified a blow to the proletarian movement (except this time, the latter's already dead). We can't be sure.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

You know, how in the old days they used to say something along the lines of "Young Leftists are Naive, and will grow to be Cold, rational conservatives when they're older"? In today's times, it is the opposite, I suspect (And this is a good thing). Libertarianism, which is common among modern Youth, among annoying little brats, is nothing more than the naivity of a common child. It's today's Utopia, it is, as Neoliberalism is, a sign of capitalism in decline.

Of course, I can be wrong. We can come to the conclusion that it's a dangerous sign of zero level class consciousness, just as growing Fascism among youth in the 20th century signified a blow to the proletarian movement (except this time, the latter's already dead). We can't be sure.

No, Libertarians are very different than Fascism. Libertarians are ever growing and replacing old neo-liberal conservatism. They are the more civilised zero class conscious conservative generation. I think this is simply a realisation at how many wars US Imperialism has caused, because most liberatarians are very conscious of the fact that Corporate america get rich off of blood money. But as time goes on they will see that their ideals are pipe-dreams, that war is a product of Capitalism's logic. I find this a great trend, Libertarians are socially liberal, are against Imperialism, are ever growing and are just simply a bunch of uneducated souls. These kind of people are people that traditionally the left caught, but because the reactionaries have been so powerful in the USA, thes discontented persons feel that Capitalism is part of the USA's society, people culture blabla. But these people are biting at the reactionaries' and Imperialists' strength in the USA, a good sign.

[DasFapital]

Libertarianism is so popular because there seems to be a vested interest in young people, and working and middle class people in general, not knowing shit. All the better they can buy into the sound bites and arguments repeated ad nauseam through the news networks. The lie that the free market is what built America, that capitalism=freedom and the less opulent conditions in countries such as Cuba is proof that socialism doesn't work because it is a flawed theory as opposed to real reasons such as material conditions and US foreign policy. Ergo out come the Gadsden flags.

[RRRevolution]

Most libertarian types I know are quite fond of the police.Its kind of like there's 2 different types of libertarians. One is people that are the more well read and politically savvy libertarians, who are really supportive of Mises, Ayn Rand, non-aggression axiom, etc.

The other is pretty much just young people who aren't sincerely into libertarian politics, but are more just in favor of legalizing drugs, hating cops/authority, etc. and think that that's what libertarianism means.

[NGNM85]

I also think part of the appeal is that Ron Paul and co. aren't really a part of the traditional political establishment, and, even though 50%-75% of what Grandpa Liberty says is totally insane, he appears to sincerely believe it, and doesn't seem to have much interest in pandering, or compromising, regardless of the political costs. I think that earnestness is a big part of the draw for a certain strata of young Americans.

[Rafiq]

No, Libertarians are very different than Fascism. Libertarians are ever growing and replacing old neo-liberal conservatism. They are the more civilised zero class conscious conservative generation. I think this is simply a realisation at how many wars US Imperialism has caused, because most liberatarians are very conscious of the fact that Corporate america get rich off of blood money.

It's similar to Fascism in that it represents capitalism in decline.


But as time goes on they will see that their ideals are pipe-dreams, that war is a product of Capitalism's logic. I find this a great trend, Libertarians are socially liberal, are against Imperialism, are ever growing and are just simply a bunch of uneducated souls.

Perhaps Objectivists are, but Libertarians are usually racist, sexist, conservative jackoffs.


These kind of people are people that traditionally the left caught, but because the reactionaries have been so powerful in the USA, thes discontented persons feel that Capitalism is part of the USA's society, people culture blabla. But these people are biting at the reactionaries' and Imperialists' strength in the USA, a good sign.

It isn't a good sign. The fact that Libertarians have come to replace the Anti Imperialist Left signifies a new rival. It's like saying that in the 20th century, a rise in Fascism was good in that they spoke out against Lassie Faire.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

It's similar to Fascism in that it represents capitalism in decline.



Perhaps Objectivists are, but Libertarians are usually racist, sexist, conservative jackoffs.



It isn't a good sign. The fact that Libertarians have come to replace the Anti Imperialist Left signifies a new rival. It's like saying that in the 20th century, a rise in Fascism was good in that they spoke out against Lassie Faire.

Correct, libertarians are "rivals" to gathering the discontented, but they are against monopoly capitalism and against war. I haven't noticed Libertarians eing racist, although i don't doubt that persons who advocate complete competition are social-darwinists. They are a bunch of stupid fucking cultists who, if they ever took power with their crazy economic theories, would destroy the little that workers get from their labor. At least they're anti-war, better than imperialist neo-liberal conservatives.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Perhaps Objectivists are, but Libertarians are usually racist, sexist, conservative jackoffs.

I think it's the exact opposite, actually.

[MuscularTophFan]

What kind of "libertarianism" are we talking about here?:confused:

Are we talking about the pro-equality, pro-democracy, anti-state capitalist strand of libertarianism or are we talking about the pro-cooperate, pro-Ayn Rand "libertarianism?"

This generation of young people are the most pro-gay, anti-religious, anti-political parties, pro-legalization of drugs, and volunteer the most for charities for any generation ever.

Young people are aganist government criminalizing same sex relationships which was in the 1950s homosexuality was illegal thought the most of the world. The older generation probably still want homosexuality illegal if they could.

Young people are against government implementing the failed war on drugs.

Young people are against political parties in general because they know the two party system is a joke.

This generations is the most anti-authoritarianism and pro-democracy generations ever. If you seriously believe "old people=wisdom" and "young person=stupid" than you are naive. Young people are the ones bringing about social changes across the world.

[Rafiq]

I think it's the exact opposite, actually.

No. Objectivists are both socially Liberal and "Financially" liberal, and while some do tend to be closet Racists and Sexists (the ones who moan about reverse racism and sexism), Libertarians a lot of hte time do the exact same, except stress things like a return of Southern institutional racism, the revoking of civil rights acts, etc. Making claims like that Union's abolition of slavery was "Tyrannical" or whatever.

[Zannarchy]

at least libertarians are against throwing us leftists in camps, unlike the conservatives.

[cynicles]

at least libertarians are against throwing us leftists in camps, unlike the conservatives.
Yeah, they'll get into power, fail miserably, THEN the fascist will replace them and throw us in camps.

[Chartist]

I think this is the post-cold war generation coming into politics, who are the first generation to be born with the fall of the USSR and 'end of communism' having discredited revolutionary socialism in the eyes of many. Their formative years are the late 90's and early 2000's, which was the high tide of the 'end of history' liberal world order. I don't think it's any wonder that they are opting to choose an ideology that is about markets and less tainted by history.

[NewLeft]

Ron Paul + Dubstep + Youthful rebellion = Porter Robinson

Being libertarian is in, being a leftist is for aging hippies.

Libertarians are pretty class conscious too.. The loudest ones are petite-bourgeois.


No. Objectivists are both socially Liberal and "Financially" liberal, and while some do tend to be closet Racists and Sexists (the ones who moan about reverse racism and sexism), Libertarians a lot of hte time do the exact same, except stress things like a return of Southern institutional racism, the revoking of civil rights acts, etc. Making claims like that Union's abolition of slavery was "Tyrannical" or whatever.
Ayn Rand attacked homosexuality and the women's movement in her 'New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution' on moral grounds.. She's probably more conservative than your typical apathetic libertarian.

[Lucretia]

Libertarianism, like some varieties of anarchism, resonates with young people trying to carve out their own place in the world. This appeal is largely due to its highly individualistic conception of freedom and rejection of authority. Still, most of these young people tend to grow out of it, either drifting into alignment with one of the mainstream bourgeois parties, or developing a more sophisticated understanding of radical politics. I wouldn't be overly concerned about these alarmist reports.

[Os Cangaceiros]

No. Objectivists are both socially Liberal and "Financially" liberal, and while some do tend to be closet Racists and Sexists (the ones who moan about reverse racism and sexism), Libertarians a lot of hte time do the exact same, except stress things like a return of Southern institutional racism, the revoking of civil rights acts, etc. Making claims like that Union's abolition of slavery was "Tyrannical" or whatever.

What are you talking about? Ayn Rand was one of the biggest arch-reactionaries of all time, supporting things like the genocide of native americans, invading countries that don't give us their oil and the suppression of the student movement during the 60's. People like Leonard Peikoff are some of the most hardcore reactionaries out there.

Alternately, many libertarians don't take the hardline states rights stance of someone like, say, Thomas DiLorenzo.

[¿Que?]

I've actually read libertarian critiques of state's rights based on the notion that government is government, regardless of whether it's federal or state (I think it's on the libertarian party website, in response to gay marriage question).

Rafiq is probably thinking of the paleo's.

[trivas7]

A tribute to the efficacy of social imprinting.

[Eadweard Merten]

It says all humans are equal, and everyone has the same chance, material conditions can be overridden by ideas.

This is massively incorrect. As a Conservative Libertarian I can assure you that one of Libertarianism founding fathers, Murray Rothbard was hard-core anti-Egalitarianism.

In fact he even supported David Duke at one time.

[Blackburn]

Welcome to Revleft, where all the big time revolutionaries spit on the label 'Liberal' but either have a soft spot for Right Wing Libertarianism, and/or are ex-right wing Libertarians themselves.

To me, Libertarians are worse than Right Wingers. They are a clueless, egotistical, selfish bunch built around the angst of young white male privilege.

It's the delusional and idealistic aspects of Right Wing Libertarianism that are the most dangerous.

At least Right Wingers are honest about being elitist scum.

[x-punk]

Another version of libertarianism being promoted just now sees land ownership as being a state creation and would see the concept abolished giving free access to land and natural resources. They see land ownership as being the primary driver behind monopolies. This is probably more anarcho-capitalism rather than libertarianism but it puts forward a far stronger economic argument for a more even distribution of wealth. Again it seems to be a favourite with younger people.

Of course I believe such a system would still tend to monopolies and would still obviously not eradicate all the environmental and social problems of capitalism no matter how free it is. Like all liberatarian economic theories it could only function under perfect competition which they argue could be achieved if everyone just played 'morally fair' under their rules.

Libertarianism is worryingly popular just now especially amongst well educated young people.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

Another version of libertarianism being promoted just now sees land ownership as being a state creation and would see the concept abolished giving free access to land and natural resources. They see land ownership as being the primary driver behind monopolies. This is probably more anarcho-capitalism rather than libertarianism but it puts forward a far stronger economic argument for a more even distribution of wealth. Again it seems to be a favourite with younger people.

Of course I believe such a system would still tend to monopolies and would still obviously not eradicate all the environmental and social problems of capitalism no matter how free it is. Like all liberatarian economic theories it could only function under perfect competition which they argue could be achieved if everyone just played 'morally fair' under their rules.

Libertarianism is worryingly popular just now especially amongst well educated young people.
Didn't "Night Ripper" take this position a while back? That homesteading is the only "legitimate" private property?

[x-punk]

Didn't "Night Ripper" take this position a while back? That homesteading is the only "legitimate" private property?

Yeah. Its pretty much the homesteading principle as i understand it. All land and natural resources are commonly owned but if you add your labour to them, the products become privately owned. Although I have heard many say they still dont support land (or 'space' as it should probably be more rightly called in this context) becoming privately owned under this system. e.g. you build a house, you own the house but not the space within it so people can come and go freely through it. :confused: The argument makes a bit more sense than somebody just drawing a line on a map and saying everything within it is mine but it still cant provide adequate justification for private property ownership as its arguments are short sighted and weak, based primarily on morality.

[Eadweard Merten]

It's the delusional and idealistic aspects of Right Wing Libertarianism that are the most dangerous.

At least Right Wingers are honest about being elitist scum.

Right Wingers as 'elitist scum'?

Then how can Chip Berlet whine so much about 'Right Wing Populism' being a major threat? Elitism and Populism are mutually exclusive.

[#FF0000]

Right Wingers as 'elitist scum'?

Then how can Chip Berlet whine so much about 'Right Wing Populism' being a major threat? Elitism and Populism are mutually exclusive.

I think it's fair to say that conservatives (all rightists, actually) are, ideologically, 'elitists'. And I'd also say that there isn't much 'populism' in right wing populism, either, since it looks to me more like the right stoking the old angry white male's fears of losing their privilege or status or whatever you want to call it.

So yeah if you ask me, 'right wing populism' is a misnomer.

[Positivist]

They'll soon change their tune one they've had experience of work...if they should be that 'lucky'.

Yeah most libertarians I talk to tend to think they are going to be millionaires.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Then we'll just have more orgies and pop out more worker bee comrades and there you go, problem solved.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

They'll soon change their tune one they've had experience of work...if they should be that 'lucky'.
Most libertarians I know were upper-middle-class kids who were then ushered into cushy, well-paid jobs through daddy's connections as soon as they got their bachelor's degree (which was paid for by their parents).

So they likely won't ever experience 'work'.

A few of them were still pretty cool people when I knew them, but that doesn't mean they didn't hold reactionary and distorted political views.


Then we'll just have more orgies and pop out more worker bee comrades and there you go, problem solved.
Vox Populi 2012!

[¿Que?]

I don't understand "upper-middle-class", sons of capitalists or petty bourgeois? Either way, I wouldn't be friends with any of these twats. Their political views are usually as fucked up as their other views and actions. Can't see how they can be "cool people" when they have reactionary views. Anyway, if you say so.
They usually have decent weed. So I tolerate them long enough to get what I want from them. Although they tend to be petty and stingy with it...

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I don't understand "upper-middle-class", sons of capitalists or petty bourgeois? Either way, I wouldn't be friends with any of these twats. Their political views are usually as fucked up as their other views and actions. Can't see how they can be "cool people" when they have reactionary views. Anyway, if you say so.
Yes, because there is no social interaction besides political talk and everybody is a jackass if they aren't a communist

[RedHammer]

I briefly flirted with libertarianism when I was younger. Then I got a job.

Libertarianism is idealism at its finest; the problem with libertarianism is that it views capitalism as a genuine meritocracy, i.e, the poor are just lazy and stupid and the rich are hard-working and virtuous. But real life just doesn't work that way. Capitalism is a ruthless game where the goal is domination of resources. It's a game about living off of the backs of others.

For all their talk of "entitlements", it's the capitalists who live like parasites, who sponge off of the productive labor of workers.

Of course, the funniest guys are the "anarcho-capitalists":laugh:
Because we all know those "private security companies" aren't just going to form mafia-style extortion rings or 'initiate aggression' against anybody

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Vox Populi 2012!

I'm the people's champ.

[MarxSchmarx]

This is true, I'm a high-school student in the south so this is not uncommon news to me. If I may be cynical, from what I see it's mostly republican kids who see a more extreme version of small government ideology + weed and that's appealing to them, in their minds they will have no limit on how rich and baked they can get. I'm not anti-drug, In fact, I'm in favor of controlled legalization. I'm just pointing out how the kids at my school seem to reason. Another factor may be that Capitalism plays on immaturity and selfishness. Libertarianism, obviously an extreme capitalist ideology, seems like a more modern ideology to kids with conservative tendencies (in other words kids that are inherently selfish and immature in ideals find what they see as a hip alternative). Another way to look at it and I think probably the simplest reason is…It's trendy. I'm not saying this isn't serious or that these kids might not end up voting libertarian but I think libertarianism's got an element of contagiousness to it because it's "stylish."

I'm actually quite curious - do these colleagues of yours watch television much? I think for most people born before, say, 1985 or so, television is a really major part of their lives, and a lot of their socialization are based on what corporate oligopolies tell them. I find most people from that age group have opinions formed mostly by television commercials, maybe a bit by movies and right-leaning shows like South Park. As such, it's not surprising that young people raised on TV generally have a libertarian view that parrots what the ruling class indoctrinates in them.

So if they don't watch much TV (I assume they don't read the newspaper or listen to the radio either), what do you think the primary influence on their opinions are?

The reason I ask is that a lot of the regurgitating of oligarchic opinions by people is based on information monopolies like the radio, newspaper in earlier generations and the television today. As the media environment becomes more heterogenous, I'm wondering where people form their rightwing opinions in people that are not primarily plugged into such centralized media channels.

[Beeth]

Middle class folks, no matter where they're from, are going to be libertarian, since it gives them the illusion that they can be rich if only they work a little harder etc. etc.

P.s.
By middle class, I mean those who aren't rich enough to be upper class, and not poor enough to be proles.

[Silvr]

Anybody else think it has more than a little to do with Southpark?

[rylasasin]

Middle class folks, no matter where they're from, are going to be libertarian, since it gives them the illusion that they can be rich if only they work a little harder etc. etc.

P.s.
By middle class, I mean those who aren't rich enough to be upper class, and not poor enough to be proles.

Marxist definition of Class has nothing to do with how wealthy you are or aren't. That's the liberal definition of class which doesn't amount to anything.

Instead, it's what you're doing to "earn" that wealth that defines class. Are you working for a capitalist for a wage? In that case you're a prole, even if you earn 100 dollars plus an hour. If you're the one paying people to do the labor for you, and paying them less than the value they put into it (Marx's definition of exploitation) and making a profit off of then you are a capitalist (or bourgeoisie). And if you're a capitalist too small to be of any real value to the ruling class, then you are Petty-Bourgeoisie.

It's just that the Bourgeoisie unsurprisingly tend to be rich.

Seriously, this should be Marxism 101.

[Le Communiste]

Well from my point of view it is much better that them being rightwing conservative nutjobs.

[feather canyons]

Unfortunately, Libertarianism is the logical outcome a desire for freedom, and freedom is an ideal that is a sacred cow in this benighted society. What the pro-freedom zealots don't understand is that in a society where all agents are completely free, those that benefit most are those who want to profit from exploiting others, i.e. capitalists.

[MarxSchmarx]

Unfortunately, Libertarianism is the logical outcome a desire for freedom, and freedom is an ideal that is a sacred cow in this benighted society. What the pro-freedom zealots don't understand is that in a society where all agents are completely free, those that benefit most are those who want to profit from exploiting others, i.e. capitalists.

The leftist response is actually that when you are exploited or deprived of a means of existence you are not free. If the capitalist is "free" to exploit others, why shouldn't the slave-raider be "free" to enslave villages? The problem with this sort of understanding for freedom isn't so much that they give undue importance to freedom as a value, but that they, per se, necessarily deprive the freedoms of others.

[#FF0000]

Marxist definition of Class has nothing to do with how wealthy you are or aren't. That's the liberal definition of class which doesn't amount to anything.

Instead, it's what you're doing to "earn" that wealth that defines class. Are you working for a capitalist for a wage? In that case you're a prole, even if you earn 100 dollars plus an hour. If you're the one paying people to do the labor for you, and paying them less than the value they put into it (Marx's definition of exploitation) and making a profit off of then you are a capitalist (or bourgeoisie). And if you're a capitalist too small to be of any real value to the ruling class, then you are Petty-Bourgeoisie.

It's just that the Bourgeoisie unsurprisingly tend to be rich.

Seriously, this should be Marxism 101.

Yeah but I think it's fair to say that people who live somewhat comfortably will sometimes have a pretty shitty view of people on welfare or people who make less than them. I mean where I live, there is a clear divide between the rich kids and the poor kids, and the "rich kids" aren't even all that rich.

At the same time it's just wrong to say "middle class people will always be libertarians". Middle class folks are all over the place and there's more to their ideology than their income.

But yeah either way I think the whole "labor aristocracy" idea has some merit and I think it's a mistake to totally dismiss the idea that these days where people don't even identify as "workers" that their income bracket will sort of affect their outlook, you know? (I understand what you're saying about the whole "marxist class definition thing" though and don't disagree i am more thinking out loud here so bear with me)

[Jazzratt]

Yeah but I think it's fair to say that people who live somewhat comfortably will sometimes have a pretty shitty view of people on welfare or people who make less than them. I mean where I live, there is a clear divide between the rich kids and the poor kids, and the "rich kids" aren't even all that rich.

At the same time it's just wrong to say "middle class people will always be libertarians". Middle class folks are all over the place and there's more to their ideology than their income.

But yeah either way I think the whole "labor aristocracy" idea has some merit and I think it's a mistake to totally dismiss the idea that these days where people don't even identify as "workers" that their income bracket will sort of affect their outlook, you know? (I understand what you're saying about the whole "marxist class definition thing" though and don't disagree i am more thinking out loud here so bear with me)
It's entirely possible that people at certain income brackets who are technically proletarians will not benefit from a communist revolution in the same way poorer people would. I can certainly think of a number of professions where you sell your labour power and don't own any means of production but still get paid such an astronomically high wage that to imagine those that hold these jobs have proletarian class interests is totally bloody risible.

The mistake, though, is in inventing this entirely new class of people (the "middle class") with nebulously defined criteria for belonging. I mean, yeah, I'm guilty of using it as an epithet to describe people who eat hummus from Waitrose or drink at wine bars but it's not a serious economic analysis and it's a nonesne to say they will act in a given manner.

[¿Que?]

Anybody else think it has more than a little to do with Southpark?
I think it has to do with Southpark but also I think there is a material basis for why a show like Southpark was put on the air, and further, why the ideas expressed in the show have taken such a hold on people.

So first off, you need a certain type of capitalist development for a show like Southpark to exist in the first place, and then, for it to get popular, and exist as a venue to express these ideas, certain conditions would have to be met here as well, and finally, for those ideas to become so widely accepted, you need other conditions too.

Also, I think it's worth noting that a majority of Southpark, and by extension, Comedy Central viewership is white, which is also the case of market libertarians. At least I'm pretty sure about this but not certain.

[Jazzratt]

Also, I think it's worth noting that a majority of Southpark, and by extension, Comedy Central viewership is white, which is also the case of market libertarians. At least I'm pretty sure about this but not certain.
Well, the available data* (http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/04/section-3-demographics-and-news-sources/) seems to suggest you're right about libertarians (85% white, 67% male) but I can't find anything on CC's viewership.

*One source in all fairness, but one that is apparently reliable.

[Silvr]

I think it has to do with Southpark but also I think there is a material basis for why a show like Southpark was put on the air, and further, why the ideas expressed in the show have taken such a hold on people.

So first off, you need a certain type of capitalist development for a show like Southpark to exist in the first place, and then, for it to get popular, and exist as a venue to express these ideas, certain conditions would have to be met here as well, and finally, for those ideas to become so widely accepted, you need other conditions too.


Is this supposed to be a hilarious parody of an awful amateur Marxist analysis?

What is the material basis for why a show like Southpark was put on the air? lol...

[Jazzratt]

Is this supposed to be a hilarious parody of an awful amateur Marxist analysis?

What is the material basis for why a show like Southpark was put on the air? lol...
I can't say I'm blown away with the analysis that the popularity of libertarianism is caused by a vulgar cartoon, either. I think pointing to the popularity of South Park as a cause of this situation as putting the cart before the horse.

Also I'm not sure why Que worded himself as he did, so I'll let him respond about that but it's worth remembering that our popular media and the concepts expressed within it do not spring out from nowhere. Everything is borne of our material conditions.

[Silvr]

I can't say I'm blown away with the analysis that the popularity of libertarianism is caused by a vulgar cartoon, either. I think pointing to the popularity of South Park as a cause of this situation as putting the cart before the horse.

I don't think its putting the cart before the horse at all. This isn't a massive political trend we are talking about, although I suppose it might appear that way from across the pond. Libertarianism really isn't as popular as people in this thread are making it out to be at all, and in my experience, most self described libertarians who aren't exclusively confined to the internet tend to be college aged kids who grew up on South Park. I don't think you can locate the direct material cause for every minor little fad that exists.


Also I'm not sure why Que worded himself as he did, so I'll let him respond about that but it's worth remembering that our popular media and the concepts expressed within it do not spring out from nowhere. Everything is borne of our material conditions.To be honest, this is vulgar materialism. If south park had a socialist message, but it got the ratings that it does, Comedy Central would be just as happy to air it. Its about making money, not about making sure the ideology of whatever product lines up just so with the ruling ideology. Its like that quote about the capitalist selling us the rope that we will use to hang him.

[Silvr]

Also, sorry to Que for the tone of my original comment, it was out of line.

[¿Que?]

Ok, well you're saying Southpark influenced people to become libertarian. That's obvious. But there are a lot of messages in Southpark, and not all of them take hold so deeply. If you'll notice, Southpark also tend to have a subtle sometimes not-so-subtle hawkish character to it. On the other hand, neither the Afghan nor the Iraq war were ever really regarded as popular wars, particularly among Southpark viewers (this last would have to be verified somehow).

I understand what you're saying about the capitalist selling the rope to hang them with. There is another one that goes something like capitalism produces its own gravediggers. So yes, if there was a trend of interest in animated socialist parodies and then some hot shot executive actually had the balls to ok something like that for broadcasting, and it made the network money, then I wouldn't be surprised if it stayed on the air.

But then why isn't there a socialist Southpark, but yes a libertarian one?

[feather canyons]

The leftist response is actually that when you are exploited or deprived of a means of existence you are not free. If the capitalist is "free" to exploit others, why shouldn't the slave-raider be "free" to enslave villages? The problem with this sort of understanding for freedom isn't so much that they give undue importance to freedom as a value, but that they, per se, necessarily deprive the freedoms of others.

Indeed. The only thing I would ad to that is that no Libertarian believes in legalistic anarchy, as in the freedom to enslave. But they do believe in freedom of markets.

The growing popularity of Libertarianism just reflects the fact that secular morals are getting more popular while left-wing economics aren't.

[Jazzratt]

I don't think its putting the cart before the horse at all. This isn't a massive political trend we are talking about, although I suppose it might appear that way from across the pond. Libertarianism really isn't as popular as people in this thread are making it out to be at all, and in my experience, most self described libertarians who aren't exclusively confined to the internet tend to be college aged kids who grew up on South Park. I don't think you can locate the direct material cause for every minor little fad that exists.
Perhaps you're right and it's my view from over here that is blowing things out of proportion but I'm not entirely sure that's the case. While people who identify as "libertarian" may still be, thankfully, thin on the ground it seems to me that a lot of libertarian memes are given credence in America:rugged independence, cult of the self-made man and all that. South Park libertarianism is pretty obviously rooted in this culture.


To be honest, this is vulgar materialism. If south park had a socialist message, but it got the ratings that it does, Comedy Central would be just as happy to air it. Its about making money, not about making sure the ideology of whatever product lines up just so with the ruling ideology. Its like that quote about the capitalist selling us the rope that we will use to hang him.
Comedy Central obviously isn't some kind of propaganda arm of a shadowy conspiracy to maintain the status quo, you're right. The thing is that there is interest in South Park and not in shows with a socialist message and I don't think that's random chance. Capitalists are always happy to sell rope but at the moment no one is buying it with a view to making nooses and that may well be because of appallingly low levels of class consciousness, for example.

[#FF0000]

I'm pretty sure it is widely agreed that the preachy libertarian season(s) of south park were fucking terrible fwiw

[cynicles]

I'm pretty sure it is widely agreed that the preachy libertarian season(s) of south park were fucking terrible fwiw
They sucked at trying to be political because of this, if all you can do is preachiness you should try and stear clear of heavy politics in any kind fo art.

[ComingUpForAir]

I used to be a Libertarian very early in my college years -- I was drawn by an ideology which seemed radical (selfishness is moral and good!) and which seemed to be somehow more intelligent than anything else I had ever heard. I grew up in a conservative, wealthy area and kind of discovered things that reinforced an individualist perspective (Nietzche, et al) even though I was always basically more of a liberal.

I finally escaped Libertarian/Ayn Randian bullshit (yes, ESCAPED), when I found a contradiction in their cults stand on Israel/Palestine. From there, I began to realize how essentially harsh it was and became a democrat. Fortunately I grew more progressive over time and eventually decided to study Marx after a trip to East Berlin inspired and sparked my curiosity.

The tragedy of all this is finding out that friends I knew that were once progressive or friends who were otherwise always right wing are now hard core Ron Paul fans -- they have the same inflexibility I once had -- a good portion of it I can honestly say was a mixture of simply haven't always felt alone and like I always had to do things on my own -- a society which leaves people behind and forces them to fend for themselves often turns them right wing

Libertarianism is a form of usurping the young who are naturally more liberal -- and when I was in college the prevailing wisdom was that studying philosophy wouldn't get you a job. I'm ENRAGED at how badly I and many fellow classmates were duped, otherwise deprived of different perspectives, segregated by race into hedonistic and nihilistic frats and sororities (basically college gangs)... anyway now I'm ranting...my point is people who go libertarian are simple and though I escaped it, I worry that many will not - for one thing, Economics and social issues are dramtically intertwined. Given womn contraception and abortion and poverty disappears within a generation because women have less kids. Give gays all the same rights and watch as people realize how inane the nuclear family structure actually is.

[Silvr]

They sucked at trying to be political because of this, if all you can do is preachiness you should try and stear clear of heavy politics in any kind fo art.

I have not watched the show in years, and I don't recall seeing any shows where they explicitly preached about Libertarianism in a way that would be readily apparent to people who were not politicos already versed in the relatively obscure ideology.

But based on what I have seen of the show (and I used to watch it a ton when I was younger), I completely disagree with you; I think the creators' ability to subtly weave their politics into a show that seems on the surface like completely shallow, mindless entertainment is actually absolutely brilliant. Which is why I think there are a lot of kids who watch the show for the cursing and the dumb poop and fart jokes, and actually end up absorbing a lot of the political sentiments without realizing what they are watching has any real political content at all.

Again, though, I haven't watched the show in probably seven or eight years, so maybe it is different now.

[Oswy]

Well, I'd rather see them develop a little bit of class consciousness and join us Lefties.

I was vaguely libertarian before I woke up and joined the left-wing fun train. At least identifying as a libertarian breaks them out of the liberal-conservative binary and makes them think about things differently. If we plug away at them enough and try to persuade them, I'm sure we can recruit a couple.

I think contemporary libertarianism is attractive to the young, especially the middle-class young, because it appears to provide an opportunity to rebel against the conservative conventions of society (and parents) while still being safely within - indeed highly defensive of - a capitalist framework. So it's a kind of fake rebellion. It also helps that contemporary libertarianism is highly narcissistic which is something of a mental starting point expectied, even demanded, by capitalism.

[ВАЛТЕР]

They'll be libertarians until they see what it means to have to struggle for your next meal. With the deepening crisis, and a decline in social conditions, class consciousness should rise. Let the libertarians spout their nonsense, they wont last long simply because material conditions of the majority will force them to rethink their positions. At least in the case of the libertarian proletariat, if the petite bourgeois and bourgeois still want to be libertarians then let them. They aren't our target audience anyways.

[cynicles]

I have not watched the show in years, and I don't recall seeing any shows where they explicitly preached about Libertarianism in a way that would be readily apparent to people who were not politicos already versed in the relatively obscure ideology.

But based on what I have seen of the show (and I used to watch it a ton when I was younger), I completely disagree with you; I think the creators' ability to subtly weave their politics into a show that seems on the surface like completely shallow, mindless entertainment is actually absolutely brilliant. Which is why I think there are a lot of kids who watch the show for the cursing and the dumb poop and fart jokes, and actually end up absorbing a lot of the political sentiments without realizing what they are watching has any real political content at all.

Again, though, I haven't watched the show in probably seven or eight years, so maybe it is different now.
It probably seemed more subtle when you we're younger but I never found their politics subtle, just preachy and sometimes hypocritical. Typical western chauvinist shit with a hint of libertarianism.

[Marxaveli]

As a few have mentioned already, Libertarianism is attractive to many young people, especially those who feel disconnected by the two-party paradigm we have. The problem with it is, those who are a part of it suffer from an identity crisis because it tries to take what is perceived as being the best elements from the typical Liberal-Conservative scale: fiscally conservative while being more liberal on social issues. The problem is, of course, that these two things are simply incompatible. They cannot understand that true democracy, in a social or political context, will never be obtained until people realize their class and economic interests, and act upon it. All in all, it is just another form of Bourgeois democracy to get the potentially younger generation to drink the reactionary kool-aid. Social justice and true democracy for historically marginalized groups, such as women and minorities, cannot occur under Capitalism and their whole ideology is a complete paradox, but trying to explain this to Libertarians is usually a lost cause.

[ComingUpForAir]

I remember when KONY 2012 stickers went up around my city in Orange County..

Most of the libertarian kids are angry and feel entitled -- they think 'socially liberal and economically conservative' makes perfect sense because they have never had to think about social issues and how they are related to economics and basically intertwined with them. They have a limited structural analysis that is narrow and immediate as a result of an education which stifles them. Libertarians I argue with have so much essentially missing form the way they view the world..

The Ron Paul thing makes them all think they are radicals and when you point out the '10 reasons not to vote for ron paul' they come back with '100 reasons to vote for ron paul'

As someone who in very early college liked Ayn Rand I can tell you first hand they are very stubborn and very attached to their ideology. It's a psychological thing that's tied to furstration, hostility to perceived slackers and fear because of a misunderstanding of who's screwing them. Pity them.

[Neoclassical Anarchist]

I am a libertarian because it makes sense to me.

Many of the criticisms leveled here against libertarians, such as having an incoherent ideology, are criticisms that I personally level against the radical left.

Something I notice in left-wing circles is that you constantly are puzzled why working class people oppose your ideology that purports to help the working class. Working class people who support freed markets are seen as conspirators or dumb proles who are too ignorant to ever become class conscious.

As a libertarian, I can say that the reason I am not left-wing is because I think it is wrong. I think the left is horribly out of touch with the economic debate. I often hear supporters of freed markets accused of being reactionary or neanderthal. The left-wing relies on classical economics, a dinosaur, to make its case. If you do not use classical economics, then the left tend to be critics of economics all together (historicism etc.). In short, the reason why neoliberalism is winning is because the left lost the debate in the realm of economics.

Losing the debate in economics does not make the left wrong. My purpose though is to show you that if you want to sway opinion in your favor, you would be best served to do it by admitting that your ideology is not substantiated by modern economic thought, and not constantly decrying your opponents as idiots who don't understand economics.

[Neoclassical Anarchist]

I used to be a Libertarian very early in my college years -- I was drawn by an ideology which seemed radical (selfishness is moral and good!) and which seemed to be somehow more intelligent than anything else I had ever heard. I grew up in a conservative, wealthy area and kind of discovered things that reinforced an individualist perspective (Nietzche, et al) even though I was always basically more of a liberal.

You weren't a very good libertarian if you thought that the whole strawman cliche of selfishness being good was a tenet of libertarian thought. The whole "greed is good" thing is a cliched line of argument used by people who consider themselves libertarian or conservative, but generally are not intelligent enough to truly understand what it means to be in favor of freed markets.

The only exception to this rule is Ayn Rand, who generally did preach that being "selfish" and anti-social was a good idea. I personally think Rand was not a libertarian. She herself didn't consider herself a libertarian. I hope you all are well aware that libertarians have factions just like the left.

Rand is to libertarians what Stalin is to the left-wing. That is at least my opinion on it.


I finally escaped Libertarian/Ayn Randian bullshit (yes, ESCAPED), when I found a contradiction in their cults stand on Israel/Palestine. From there, I began to realize how essentially harsh it was and became a democrat. Fortunately I grew more progressive over time and eventually decided to study Marx after a trip to East Berlin inspired and sparked my curiosity.

The tragedy of all this is finding out that friends I knew that were once progressive or friends who were otherwise always right wing are now hard core Ron Paul fans -- they have the same inflexibility I once had -- a good portion of it I can honestly say was a mixture of simply haven't always felt alone and like I always had to do things on my own -- a society which leaves people behind and forces them to fend for themselves often turns them right wing

Libertarianism is a form of usurping the young who are naturally more liberal -- and when I was in college the prevailing wisdom was that studying philosophy wouldn't get you a job. I'm ENRAGED at how badly I and many fellow classmates were duped, otherwise deprived of different perspectives, segregated by race into hedonistic and nihilistic frats and sororities (basically college gangs)... anyway now I'm ranting...my point is people who go libertarian are simple and though I escaped it, I worry that many will not - for one thing, Economics and social issues are dramtically intertwined. Given womn contraception and abortion and poverty disappears within a generation because women have less kids. Give gays all the same rights and watch as people realize how inane the nuclear family structure actually is.

I am against zionism and Israel, and I am also a libertarian. It is pretty clear that what you escaped from wasn't libertarianism per-se, just Randroidism.

[Neoclassical Anarchist]

Middle class folks, no matter where they're from, are going to be libertarian, since it gives them the illusion that they can be rich if only they work a little harder etc. etc.

P.s.
By middle class, I mean those who aren't rich enough to be upper class, and not poor enough to be proles.

I often hear this from the left. The left thinks that if you support freed markets, you think you are going to become wealthy and use the system to your own advantage.

Isn't it possible that empirical economics has created enough evidence to convince people that socialism isn't a workable system? Isn't it possible that empirical economics has demonstrated that the market economy, even in its current quasi-fascist state, is overall responsible for the continual upward living conditions of all people?

If the rich always got richer and the poor always got poorer, the poor would have died out decades ago.

I think even those from low and moderate income backgrounds can embrace neoliberalism. I come from a lower middle class background myself.

[l'Enfermé]

Free market economics are more antiquated than Marxian economics and whateverthehellitisthatanarchistsbelievein. This free-market nonsense has been unpractical since the late 19th century.

[helot]

In short, the reason why neoliberalism is winning is because the left lost the debate in the realm of economics.

I'm afraid you need to brush up on 20th century history.

It seems you're falling for the falsehood that society is a debating chamber. However, society is instead a power struggle between classes. Neoliberalism is winning as you put it not because the left lost the debate but because the labour movement has undergone decades worth of defeats and is now much weaker than it once was.

[cynicles]

Something I notice in left-wing circles is that you constantly are puzzled why working class people oppose your ideology that purports to help the working class. Working class people who support freed markets are seen as conspirators or dumb proles who are too ignorant to ever become class conscious.
What is your definition of working class? If they think that working class people always make the right decision then they're stupid and holding people up to unrealistic expectations that are downright idealist.



As a libertarian, I can say that the reason I am not left-wing is because I think it is wrong. I think the left is horribly out of touch with the economic debate. I often hear supporters of freed markets accused of being reactionary or neanderthal. The left-wing relies on classical economics, a dinosaur, to make its case. If you do not use classical economics, then the left tend to be critics of economics all together (historicism etc.). In short, the reason why neoliberalism is winning is because the left lost the debate in the realm of economics.

Losing the debate in economics does not make the left wrong. My purpose though is to show you that if you want to sway opinion in your favor, you would be best served to do it by admitting that your ideology is not substantiated by modern economic thought, and not constantly decrying your opponents as idiots who don't understand economics.

What exactly is modern about lolbertarian thought? It's just rehashed classical liberalism with a new name. Are you suggesting we should rename everything then start pretending like we're new again then people will start joining us?

[Neoclassical Anarchist]

I'm afraid you need to brush up on 20th century history.

It seems you're falling for the falsehood that society is a debating chamber. However, society is instead a power struggle between classes. Neoliberalism is winning as you put it not because the left lost the debate but because the labour movement has undergone decades worth of defeats and is now much weaker than it once was.

Neoliberalism is winning because the academics are in favor of it.

Socialism was a fad that died during the Cold War era when the position started to become unfashionable and critically scrutinized for the first time. Soon people realized that the emperor had no clothes, and the left fled to fields like sociology.

Socialists used to argue that socialism was more efficient than freed markets. Notice how socialists abandoned that whole schtick a long time ago. Now its all about sustainability and criticizing things like overproduction. Essentially socialism retreated from its defeat in economics and became an ideology based more in ideological dogmatism than utilitarianism and empiricism.

[Neoclassical Anarchist]

What is your definition of working class? If they think that working class people always make the right decision then they're stupid and holding people up to unrealistic expectations that are downright idealist.

Is there such a thing as an objectively correct decision?

The rational self-interest assumption has been so misrepresented by the left. Rational self-interest doesn't assume that people objectively make the perfect decision in every instance. The assumption simply assumes that individuals attempt to maximize utility in the way they themselves consider to be the most rational way.


What exactly is modern about lolbertarian thought? It's just rehashed classical liberalism with a new name. Are you suggesting we should rename everything then start pretending like we're new again then people will start joining us?

My point wasn't that libertarianism is new. I wasn't even talking about libertarianism, I was talking about economics. Whether you like it or not, you guys were totally left behind during the marginal revolution. Haven't you ever wondered why Marx never wrote another volume of Capital addressing the marginal revolution? Its because the marginal revolution obliterated the basic premises of his theories.

[Kotze]

In short, the reason why neoliberalism is winning is because the left lost the debate in the realm of economics.You think Pinochet became Allende's successor by winning a debate?

[Prinskaj]

Haven't you ever wondered why Marx never wrote another volume of Capital addressing the marginal revolution? Its because the marginal revolution obliterated the basic premises of his theories.I am guessing, that he didn't write another volume because he kinda died after publishing the first one..

[Blasphemous Apostate]

Let's not despair too much yet over the younger generation. If they were really all right-wing libertarians, the GOP and its capitalist paymasters wouldn't be nearly so frightened of them as they seem to be. After all, right-wing libertarians are the easiest thing in the world for the capitalist establishment to instrumentalize. Why else do you think they created that ideology in the first place?

I can't say I find that article at all convincing. The author has a couple of buddies who are right-wing libertarians. Perhaps he's one too, and birds of a feather do flock together after all. The author doesn't go into detail about their socio-economic class backgrounds, but at first read they sound to me like typical upwardly-aspiring bourgeois wannabes who root for capitalism because they're too young and naive to have had a chance to be disappointed or screwed over by it yet.

As for the Harvard poll, no source citation anywhere in the article. For all we know the author could have invented the poll and its results out of his own imagination. And even if such a poll was really taken and its results published, I for one would be interested in examining its sample much more closely for social, economic class, racial, and any number of other demographic biases.

In short, the article cited has a strong aroma of reactionary propaganda rather than objective journalism. From what I see around me and also observe on the net, there's plenty of left-wing interest out there among younger people, especially those younger than the 26 and 30 year old white guys the author makes the centerpiece of his case.

My generation and the one immediately following drank deeply of the kapitalist kool aid, but we wouldn't have #Occupy today if a substantial number of the new generation hadn't awakened and smelled what was being served them.

Take heart!

[Blasphemous Apostate]

that worker sees himself as an individual, an individual who can have great life, become successful if it weren't for the dern: government / big banks / taxes / politicians

it creates an idea of the self as an individual who owes nothing to anybody and needs no help, one of their big phrases is 'i never got any handouts'
they believe they have the potential to be rich and 'unfair' society is holding them back.

basically the restaurant worker thinks he's a a future thousandaire waiting to happen, and that 'liberty, small government, and low taxes' will help that happen, because the culture says freedom and liberty are the greatest things ever and they are our american values the core of the american system and any good american supports this.


What I've elsewhere long referred to as "The Great American Delusion", or as John Steinbeck put it, "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires."



of course a class conscious worker would never believe such ideas.

Precisely. Real change won't happen until and unless some degree of proletarian class-consciousness can be developed in the American proletariat.

[Blasphemous Apostate]

It's frightening how many here have a 'Libertarian' past.


I'll own up and admit that I do.

I completely fell for all the lies and ideological sophistry from Ayn Rand, the "Austrian School of Economics", and the whole rest of that rogues gallery from approximately ages 15-25, after which I became more and more disillusioned with those ideas with each passing year.

That said, I completely agree with your assessment of right-wing libertarianism.

"The things I once believed in are the things I now hate most of all."

[Positivist]

Neoliberalism is winning because the academics are in favor of it.

Socialism was a fad that died during the Cold War era when the position started to become unfashionable and critically scrutinized for the first time. Soon people realized that the emperor had no clothes, and the left fled to fields like sociology.

Socialists used to argue that socialism was more efficient than freed markets. Notice how socialists abandoned that whole schtick a long time ago. Now its all about sustainability and criticizing things like overproduction. Essentially socialism retreated from its defeat in economics and became an ideology based more in ideological dogmatism than utilitarianism and empiricism.

How have socialists abandoned that socialism is more efficient than free markets? I'm assuming by "socialism" you are referring to economic planning which is actually clearly superior to market economy. The experience of the Soviet union actually demonstrated this quite well. Productive figures surged in the Soviet union, and conditions advanced from semi-feudality to full industrialization. Soviet economic planning was only unsuccessful because the majority of production was necessarily oriented towards building and sustaining the military and there was a lack of reliable consumer input due to the political climate which was unfriendly to criticism. The experience of the Soviet union does far more to support the efficiency of economic planning than to detract from it, and on the contrary such planning failed due to the context in which it was implemented.

Now since I feel I can safely assume that anywhere the name socialist is thrown out your gonna start foaming at the mouth, I direct you to south Korea, India, and the us during the world wars. Each of these economies was equally or exceedingly planned and centralized as compared to the Soviet union, and produced rapidly and efficiently as a result.

Also for your information, criticism of overproduction and related Marxian critiques are not sociology and still fall under the category of economics. What could possibly lead you to believe that a critique of productive and consumptive process is a matter of sociology?

Furthermore to your assertion that neoliberalism is correct because it is most commonly accepted amongst academics, liberalism was accepted amongst most academics prior to the great depression, and keynesianism until the deep recession so clearly widespread academic support isn't indicative of accuracy, and quite frankly it is quite immature to believe so. So stop saying "well socialism must not work because a lot of other people agree that it doesn't." That's not an argument. If economic planning is inefficient explain why and point to empirical evidence that corroborates your assertion.

[cynicles]

Is there such a thing as an objectively correct decision?

The rational self-interest assumption has been so misrepresented by the left. Rational self-interest doesn't assume that people objectively make the perfect decision in every instance. The assumption simply assumes that individuals attempt to maximize utility in the way they themselves consider to be the most rational way.



My point wasn't that libertarianism is new. I wasn't even talking about libertarianism, I was talking about economics. Whether you like it or not, you guys were totally left behind during the marginal revolution. Haven't you ever wondered why Marx never wrote another volume of Capital addressing the marginal revolution? Its because the marginal revolution obliterated the basic premises of his theories.
Your first point is irrelevant, I couldn't give a rats ass about individual decision making being objectively right or whatever you're talking about. I was saying it was asinine for leftists to assume the working class that way.

No, the "left"(whatever that means) knows exactly what rational self interest is. It's little more then a concept that seems initially logical but spirals into water muddying maelstrom of useless shit that's always seems to magically adhere to you're political ideology or else the people are rebuked as not following their self interest. In other words, it's whatever lolbertarians say they want it to be.

Your last paragraph is so flawed I lold. Marx died before he could write another volume. Marxism has evolved since then making your point about being left behind outright incorrect and revealing of your ignorance on the subject. You also haven't shown how it obliterated his work yet, though I suspect given the number of free marketeers people on these forums have had practice tearing apart you'd having nothing new or insightful to offer. Just more of the same old trash we hear atleast twice a month.

[Blasphemous Apostate]

Your last paragraph is so flawed I lold. Marx died before he could write another volume. Marxism has evolved since then making your point about being left behind outright incorrect and revealing of your ignorance on the subject. You also haven't shown how it obliterated his work yet, though I suspect given the number of free marketeers people on these forums have had practice tearing apart you'd having nothing new or insightful to offer. Just more of the same old trash we hear at least twice a month.


Well said, Cynicles! :thumbup:

Speaking from experience as an ex-libertarian and later an ex-conservative, this is quite typical of libertarians as well as conservatives who believe that the "Austrian School" of economics is the last word on the subject, and that the evolution of Marxist thought ended with Marx and Engels.

Of course, in right-wing enclaves they don't tell you that scientific socialism, like other forms of scientific and philosophical inquiry, evolves by continuous empirical discovery and observation, and continues to do so now.

They also don't tell you about the later Marxian critiques of the "Austrian School" by Hilferding, Bukharin, etc. And they certainly don't say anything at all about "Austrian" market economics as a completely closed deductive system of abstractions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the realities of capitalist production.

If our libertarian friend is indeed so confident that the Austrian School's "marginal revolution" has undermined the basis of Marxian thought, then perhaps it behooves him to demonstrate his case rather than merely asserting it.

As for the change of orthodoxies in academia, I formerly was myself part of the "conservative" movement long enough to witness first hand how the Right organized and mobilized capitalist vested interests to use funding as a weapon to compel academic institutions to embrace their class ideology as orthodoxy.

[High School Marxist]

The kids are libertarian, especially here in South Dakota, but I'm pretty sure some of them are only libertarians because they simply aren't knowledgeable about socialism, our schools certainly don't tell them. Plus the ideology of socialism is much harder to grasp as opposed to that of Libertarianism, and most kids don't want to take the time to learn about it. I think if more people were knowledgeable of socialism, more people, particularly the youth, would quickly switch.

[Positivist]

I pretty much equate citing the Austrian school with citing verses from the Bible. The adherents to both always uncritically accept whatever the authors expound and the substance of both has been stripped of any value by the idiotic application of its adherents.

[Neoclassical Anarchist]

How have socialists abandoned that socialism is more efficient than free markets? I'm assuming by "socialism" you are referring to economic planning which is actually clearly superior to market economy. The experience of the Soviet union actually demonstrated this quite well. Productive figures surged in the Soviet union, and conditions advanced from semi-feudality to full industrialization. Soviet economic planning was only unsuccessful because the majority of production was necessarily oriented towards building and sustaining the military and there was a lack of reliable consumer input due to the political climate which was unfriendly to criticism. The experience of the Soviet union does far more to support the efficiency of economic planning than to detract from it, and on the contrary such planning failed due to the context in which it was implemented.

I am not well read on economic history concerning the economic output of the Soviet Union. I cannot dispute your claim on output. The context you mention does indeed matter however. A society that produces quite a lot is not worth much at the end of the day if what they are producing is unwanted. Take warfare for example. The economy tends to do "well" during wars. The problem is that the kind of things being manufactured are things like F-22's and machine guns and other death machines used to destroy wealth, not create it. In other words, I would argue that a society can produce quite a bit, but not create more wealth. Weapons are usually not wealth.


Now since I feel I can safely assume that anywhere the name socialist is thrown out your gonna start foaming at the mouth, I direct you to south Korea, India, and the us during the world wars. Each of these economies was equally or exceedingly planned and centralized as compared to the Soviet union, and produced rapidly and efficiently as a result.

Also for your information, criticism of overproduction and related Marxian critiques are not sociology and still fall under the category of economics. What could possibly lead you to believe that a critique of productive and consumptive process is a matter of sociology?

Furthermore to your assertion that neoliberalism is correct because it is most commonly accepted amongst academics, liberalism was accepted amongst most academics prior to the great depression, and keynesianism until the deep recession so clearly widespread academic support isn't indicative of accuracy, and quite frankly it is quite immature to believe so. So stop saying "well socialism must not work because a lot of other people agree that it doesn't." That's not an argument. If economic planning is inefficient explain why and point to empirical evidence that corroborates your assertion.

I did not assert that neoliberalism is correct because it is the most widely held view. In fact, I have made a concerted effort not to use appeals to majority or authority as arguments. I am sorry if I gave a contrary impression.

[Neoclassical Anarchist]

Well said, Cynicles! :thumbup:

Speaking from experience as an ex-libertarian and later an ex-conservative, this is quite typical of libertarians as well as conservatives who believe that the "Austrian School" of economics is the last word on the subject, and that the evolution of Marxist thought ended with Marx and Engels.

Of course, in right-wing enclaves they don't tell you that scientific socialism, like other forms of scientific and philosophical inquiry, evolves by continuous empirical discovery and observation, and continues to do so now.

They also don't tell you about the later Marxian critiques of the "Austrian School" by Hilferding, Bukharin, etc. And they certainly don't say anything at all about "Austrian" market economics as a completely closed deductive system of abstractions that have nothing whatsoever to do with the realities of capitalist production.

If our libertarian friend is indeed so confident that the Austrian School's "marginal revolution" has undermined the basis of Marxian thought, then perhaps it behooves him to demonstrate his case rather than merely asserting it.

As for the change of orthodoxies in academia, I formerly was myself part of the "conservative" movement long enough to witness first hand how the Right organized and mobilized capitalist vested interests to use funding as a weapon to compel academic institutions to embrace their class ideology as orthodoxy.

First of all, I do not consider myself an Austrian, hence "Neoclassical" in my name.

Second, the marginal revolution is not unique to the Austrian School. Three men came up with the theory independently of each other around the same time. The Austrians like to make it sound like they were the first.

[Neoclassical Anarchist]

I pretty much equate citing the Austrian school with citing verses from the Bible. The adherents to both always uncritically accept whatever the authors expound and the substance of both has been stripped of any value by the idiotic application of its adherents.

I view the Austrian School as being similar to Marxian Economics, except that Austrian Economics is more empirical and modernized.

[Positivist]

I am not well read on economic history concerning the economic output of the Soviet Union. I cannot dispute your claim on output. The context you mention does indeed matter however. A society that produces quite a lot is not worth much at the end of the day if what they are producing is unwanted. Take warfare for example. The economy tends to do "well" during wars. The problem is that the kind of things being manufactured are things like F-22's and machine guns and other death machines used to destroy wealth, not create it. In other words, I would argue that a society can produce quite a bit, but not create more wealth. Weapons are usually not wealth.

Ahh but you see much of what was produced was indeed wanted, in all of these economies. The shortage of consumer goods only started to present itself as a problem as the Soviet Union aged and people developed tastes for luxury items. Basic needs and wants were provided for through this massive increase in productivity including food, clean water, electricity, education, healthcare and transportation (the exception being Ukraine during the holdomor period, which I can go into extensively if you wish.)

As for the failure to produce luxury goods, I agree with you. The Soviet planning system did have avenues for consumer input and criticism of the plans, but this was discouraged by the militarist political apparatus, and as I stated before, this militarist political system is not a necessary feature of a planned economy.

Also its interesting to not that upon the dissolution of the Soviet bloc, the former Soviet territories experienced a 40% drop in GDP, and sunk into a depression. Even now GDP staggers around the highs it hit in 1991.

[Zannarchy]

I laugh at all the communists on here. you really think youre not going to have an administrative elite form in your age of empires-esque state utopia? lol. a dictatorship of the proletariat is still a dictatorship. who cares how we make our wages if theyre against our personal choices. your no better than the right wingers

[Prinskaj]

I laugh at all the communists on here. you really think youre not going to have an administrative elite form in your age of empires-esque state utopia? lol. a dictatorship of the proletariat is still a dictatorship. who cares how we make our wages if theyre against our personal choices. your no better than the right wingers
The ignorance! It burns!
Jesus H. Christ, you don't even know the fundamentals of leftist thought, yet still try to argue against it. You seem to be the one, who is no better than a right-winger.

[cynicles]

I laugh at all the communists on here. you really think youre not going to have an administrative elite form in your age of empires-esque state utopia? lol. a dictatorship of the proletariat is still a dictatorship. who cares how we make our wages if theyre against our personal choices. your no better than the right wingers
lmfao is this guy a troll?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Don't feed the trolls, correct them then leave them alone.

[feather canyons]

The kids are all morons who lap up bourgeois media like a thirsty dog. Who cares.

[feather canyons]

a dictatorship of the proletariat is still a dictatorship.

A power-sharing arrangement between bourgeois parties is still a dictatorship as well. This is what you call your "freedom". :laugh:

[Marxaveli]

I laugh at all the communists on here. you really think youre not going to have an administrative elite form in your age of empires-esque state utopia? lol. a dictatorship of the proletariat is still a dictatorship. who cares how we make our wages if theyre against our personal choices. your no better than the right wingers

Except that the Proletarian consists of 98% of society. It's only a dictatorship if you are part of the 2% Bourgeois scum that thinks they have the right to subjugate the labor of the rest of society. Give it a rest man.

[Buttress]

The kids are all morons who lap up bourgeois media like a thirsty dog. Who cares.

Hey, you can't blame them completely. Part of their knowledge of the world is informed by the media, which yes, makes them hungry for more.

[Strannik]

I'm not an american, I'm from former USSR. But I was also an anarcho-capitalist "libertarian" as a teenager. A few years of unemployment and working full-time at minimum wage tends to cure that.

Basically, people have actual material interests. Even if they are teached to believe something else, they can't hold beliefs that go against their material interests forever. Those who do so, simply die. People try to cling to their ideology, but when it ignores the actual material situation, the will reject it at some point for something completely opposite.

I'm an outside observer, but it seems to me that prevalence of libertarian values in USA has to do with peculiar material conditions of its history - it's not just a bourgeois republic, its a bourgeois republic built upon a pile of untapped resources, giving the historical illusion that infinite capitalistic expansion is a real possibility. This illusion has been sustained now for a few decades with cheap credit - or "colonizing" your own future.

But well, currently we are all over the world experiencing a reality check and return of material class interests. This will at some point include a monumental shift in ideology as well.

[Positivist]

The kids are all morons who lap up bourgeois media like a thirsty dog. Who cares.

Well obviously if this is the case then it is the result of material conditions. Furthermore the kids kinda matter for the whole future thing, ya know?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I laugh at all the communists on here. you really think youre not going to have an administrative elite form in your age of empires-esque state utopia? lol. a dictatorship of the proletariat is still a dictatorship.

"Dictatorship of the proletariat" means exactly that. It means that the proletariat is in a position to dictate matters. It looks like you've confused that with a dictatorship in the name of the proletariat.

Hint: a dictatorship doesn't have to consist of a single individual.

[l'Enfermé]

Except that the Proletarian consists of 98% of society. It's only a dictatorship if you are part of the 2% Bourgeois scum that thinks they have the right to subjugate the labor of the rest of society. Give it a rest man.
The proletariat makes up no more than 30-40 percent of the world's population, including children and the retired.

[the Left™]

I used to debate a libertarian in college who was a self proclaimed pro-marriage pro-life libertarian capitalist. I was like wait what:lol::lol:

[Veovis]

I used to debate a libertarian in college who was a self proclaimed pro-marriage pro-life libertarian capitalist. I was like wait what:lol::lol:

Probably just wanted to freely smoke pot.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The proletariat makes up no more than 30-40 percent of the world's population, including children and the retired.

How did you get those figures?

[Fire]

Question, What exactly is the popular libertarian stance these days? Is it really weed, privatize the ocean, no taxes, and "small" goverment?

You forgot the gold standard and Austrian economics

Also buy more bit coins

[Positivist]

The proletariat makes up no more than 30-40 percent of the world's population, including children and the retired.

I'm assuming this only includes the industrial proletariat. To be proletarian means to be propertyless, and to be forced to sell your labor power at less than its value because you have no other viable entry into the economy.

[Jason]

I have more respect for religious fundies than libertarians. At least, the fundies have some moral base for their actions and somewhat of a heart (at least promising an afterlife for pious souls).

A person's actions affect other human beings. You can't prance around with your so called "freedom" thinking otherwise. The "1960s" era freedom may have caused people to question authority. However, it has lead many of them to become selfish, and therefore an "enemy of communism".

[LiberationTheologist]

The proletariat makes up no more than 30-40 percent of the world's population, including children and the retired.

I'm wondering where you got your numbers from too. Please explain.