Criticism of Libertarian Theory

[ComradeAllende]

Recently, I've been reading into libertarian (classical liberal) politics and economics, given its relatively tight hold on the American political class. I wonder if anyone could give me a Marxist critique of libertarian political and economic theories, especially pertaining to the Non-Aggression Principle and their fetish of "free market" capitalism.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't think American "libertarianism" has a tight hold on anyone except weird people on the Internet, to be honest. In any case, with the "non-aggression principle", as with any principle people have pulled out of their arse, why would anyone care? I can go around inventing principles all day, and that wouldn't mean anything. "NAP" is no different. And of course, it defines aggression so that enforcement of private property, meaning most violence in the world, is excluded. But it is consistent. Only it's completely uninteresting.

Likewise the keening over "really free" markets, capitalism has never meant unregulated markets with no state presence because that would lead to a collapse of markets. Lolbertarians are simply redefining a commonly understood word so they can construct specious arguments and have a great big cry-wank over how the US is socialist.

Then of course there's the adherence of many lolbertarians to Objectivism, with its crackpot epistemology, and the Austrian school, with their crackpot "praxeology".

[willowtooth]

I don't think American "libertarianism" has a tight hold on anyone except weird people on the Internet, to be honest. In any case, with the "non-aggression principle", as with any principle people have pulled out of their arse, why would anyone care? I can go around inventing principles all day, and that wouldn't mean anything. "NAP" is no different. And of course, it defines aggression so that enforcement of private property, meaning most violence in the world, is excluded. But it is consistent. Only it's completely uninteresting.

Likewise the keening over "really free" markets, capitalism has never meant unregulated markets with no state presence because that would lead to a collapse of markets. Lolbertarians are simply redefining a commonly understood word so they can construct specious arguments and have a great big cry-wank over how the US is socialist.

Then of course there's the adherence of many lolbertarians to Objectivism, with its crackpot epistemology, and the Austrian school, with their crackpot "praxeology".
Paul Ryan just got elected speaker of the house:wub:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Paul Ryan is also not a "libertarian". It's an odd point to harp on about, but I've seen many, many people on the Internet massively overstate the relative importance of US "libertarians". Part of this comes from "libertarians" themselves, most of which are slimy types who use sites like Wikipedia to push their claims. Part of this is because for many people the Internet is their only contact with politics, and libertarian types are a dime a dozen on the 'net. In real life, US "libertarians" are less important and numerous than LaRoucheites or Moonies, hell, in its heyday the minuscule US Posadist org probably had more people than the "Libertarian" Party.

[Comrade Jacob]

I don't think American "libertarianism" has a tight hold on anyone except weird people on the Internet, to be honest. In any case, with the "non-aggression principle", as with any principle people have pulled out of their arse, why would anyone care? I can go around inventing principles all day, and that wouldn't mean anything. "NAP" is no different. And of course, it defines aggression so that enforcement of private property, meaning most violence in the world, is excluded. But it is consistent. Only it's completely uninteresting.

Likewise the keening over "really free" markets, capitalism has never meant unregulated markets with no state presence because that would lead to a collapse of markets. Lolbertarians are simply redefining a commonly understood word so they can construct specious arguments and have a great big cry-wank over how the US is socialist.

Then of course there's the adherence of many lolbertarians to Objectivism, with its crackpot epistemology, and the Austrian school, with their crackpot "praxeology".

Yeah, the internet makes them look bigger than they are.

[willowtooth]

Paul Ryan is also not a "libertarian". It's an odd point to harp on about, but I've seen many, many people on the Internet massively overstate the relative importance of US "libertarians". Part of this comes from "libertarians" themselves, most of which are slimy types who use sites like Wikipedia to push their claims. Part of this is because for many people the Internet is their only contact with politics, and libertarian types are a dime a dozen on the 'net. In real life, US "libertarians" are less important and numerous than LaRoucheites or Moonies, hell, in its heyday the minuscule US Posadist org probably had more people than the "Libertarian" Party.

the tea party is libertarian, ron and rand paul have been candidates for president, and if paul "shutdown the government to balance the budget" ryan isn't a libertarian than i dont know who is?

[Counterculturalist]

The weird inversion of the political spectrum that conflates socialism with big government and dictatorship seems to have gained a lot of currency with the non-libertarian public at large, to the point where in order to have a discussion about socialism with somebody who doesn't follow politics much you have to spend a stupid amount of time laying the groundwork for your position by disavowing fascism and nazism, for example. Although mainstream conservatives like Beck/Limbaugh/Fox News also push this narrative, so maybe blaming it on libertarianism is inaccurate.

Seems to me, though, 5 or 10 years ago everybody understood that fascism was a right-wing movement and ideology, whereas now it's no longer a given for many. Maybe it's not a huge deal, but I can't stand to see basic facts become "debatable" because of assholes literally making things up.

[Tim Cornelis]

the tea party is libertarian, ron and rand paul have been candidates for president, and if paul "shutdown the government to balance the budget" ryan isn't a libertarian than i dont know who is?

Then I honestly don't think you know what a (right-wing) libertarian of the variety we're talking about is. Rand Paul and Paul Ryan don't advocate a night watchmen state. Nor does the Tea Party. They're conservatives.

[ComradeAllende]

The weird inversion of the political spectrum that conflates socialism with big government and dictatorship seems to have gained a lot of currency with the non-libertarian public at large, to the point where in order to have a discussion about socialism with somebody who doesn't follow politics much you have to spend a stupid amount of time laying the groundwork for your position by disavowing fascism and nazism, for example. Although mainstream conservatives like Beck/Limbaugh/Fox News also push this narrative, so maybe blaming it on libertarianism is inaccurate.

I think this may have been the result of the "creeping socialism" attacks made by conservatives on social liberals during the Cold War. That and the fact that the liberal Democrats "borrowed" some of their ideas regarding the welfare state from the Socialist Party Platform, especially during the Depression and the emergence of the Second New Deal.


Seems to me, though, 5 or 10 years ago everybody understood that fascism was a right-wing movement and ideology, whereas now it's no longer a given for many. Maybe it's not a huge deal, but I can't stand to see basic facts become "debatable" because of assholes literally making things up.

I remember reading an article from the National Review that struggled to argue how Bernie Sanders was a Nazi ("national socialist") because of his views on protectionism and welfare. I think the emergence of "left-wing fascism" as an attack from the right came from the conservative (rather than libertarian) movement, with exponents like Jonah Goldberg and his book on Liberal Fascism. I guess they got tired of being called "fascists" by dovish liberals and decided to respond in kind lol.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I don't think American "libertarianism" has a tight hold on anyone except weird people on the Internet, to be honest. In any case, with the "non-aggression principle", as with any principle people have pulled out of their arse, why would anyone care? I can go around inventing principles all day, and that wouldn't mean anything. "NAP" is no different. And of course, it defines aggression so that enforcement of private property, meaning most violence in the world, is excluded. But it is consistent. Only it's completely uninteresting.

Likewise the keening over "really free" markets, capitalism has never meant unregulated markets with no state presence because that would lead to a collapse of markets. Lolbertarians are simply redefining a commonly understood word so they can construct specious arguments and have a great big cry-wank over how the US is socialist.

Then of course there's the adherence of many lolbertarians to Objectivism, with its crackpot epistemology, and the Austrian school, with their crackpot "praxeology".

Libertarianism in American parlance is just pure capitalism with all it's theory and history. FOX news, the GOP, both 'establishment' and 'outsiders' consult the CATO institute, Mises Institute and all of those Libertarian think tanks. The difference, 'establishment' politicians make more concessions and are more centrist. I don't see how relegating all that as a mere internet phenomena is accurate.

[Rafiq]

Paul Ryan is also not a "libertarian". It's an odd point to harp on about, but I've seen many, many people on the Internet massively overstate the relative importance of US "libertarians". Part of this comes from "libertarians" themselves, most of which are slimy types who use sites like Wikipedia to push their claims. Part of this is because for many people the Internet is their only contact with politics, and libertarian types are a dime a dozen on the 'net. In real life, US "libertarians" are less important and numerous than LaRoucheites or Moonies, hell, in its heyday the minuscule US Posadist org probably had more people than the "Libertarian" Party.

Every American here understands how pervasive and prevalent Libertarianism is. As if the internet exists in the a vacuum, for fuck's sake.

In reality, every other person is a libertarian. In Europe, you have your fascists. Here in the US, we have our confederate flag waving Libertarians. I live around Detroit Michigan, a place that has a heavy concentration of black people compared to other places in the US, every other pickup truck you see in many parts of metro-detroit, to say nothing about rural Michigan (and there is a lot to say) is most likely driven by a Libertarian. You are literally clueless about politics here. That libertarians do not have a consistent political party that which they can express their ideas is literally meaningless, simply because of the fact that politics in the US don't work like that: Political parties have a very minuscule role in defining people's politics, most likely people's politics will influence why they support certain aspects or policies put forward by this or that party - the dominance of the Democrats and Republicans is a tacit axiom here, that's why the Libertarian party might be small. I mean you can't even INTERACT with people on a direct level here while thinking Libertarianism is irrelevant: Every other idiot is a Libertarian here, our basic acquaintances, teachers, business owners, public figures, celebrities, like you don't know shit. In community colleges, most poor white kids who have political views at all (even of working class backgrounds) identify as 'Libertarians'. It is our very own American Fascism.

I don't even want to pour energy into this. I mean, what you say is so painfully stupid it hurts my head how someone can think like this - Libertarianism is just so fucking pervasive in this country that to claim it's some weird fetish solely confined to the internet (because the internet sais nothing about actual society, which is outside the internet of course) is actually disgustingly stupid and ignorant - this is something that is deeply ingrained in our society, when you say "Libertarian" most Americans understand what it means, at the level of personal interaction. Even for people who do not identify as libertarians - the whole core, ideological basis of it is pervasive in our society among most conservatives bellow the age of 50, and I truly mean this: Libertarianism didn't come out of nowhere. Can another American please explain it to him? Such a banal thing, a basic truism is so exhausting to explain.

[Rafiq]

Then I honestly don't think you know what a (right-wing) libertarian of the variety we're talking about is. Rand Paul and Paul Ryan don't advocate a night watchmen state. Nor does the Tea Party. They're conservatives.

And alan greenspan was an objectivist. No one actually advocates a "night watchmen" state, the whole point of libertarianism is a set of ethics that degrade standards so one can justify very practical, neoliberal measures: Cutting social services, education, ETC.

The point is to have a language that can say: "Well, I'm not saying we should go as far as abolishing the state, even though you can make an argument for that, but it would be at least reasonable to cut welfare" and so on. That's the point of libertarianism - it serves to degrade standards.