Dude who was never a libertarian says he's no longer a libertarian...

[Sumeet]

This article popped up in my Facebook feed a few times, and I wondered if others interested in liberty had seen it...

 

http://www.alternet.org/why-i-fled-libertarianism-and-became-liberal?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

 

I suppose whatever group he had been a part of may have claimed they were libertarians, but it sounds to me like he was (if anything) involved in the most extreme end of political libertarianism, filled with racists, corporatists, and fundamentalist theists. The people he described don't sound anything like the advocates of liberty I've come to know over the years. My response to the Facebook post was:

 

"This guy suggests he fled "libertarianism" and became a "liberal", because the people he associated with in the past were "assholes", and he (presumably) didn't want to be. Unfortunately for him, all he achieved in this transition was going from an outright, in-your-face asshole, to an asshole who makes himself feel better by covering up his assholery with platitudes and feel-good bullshit... yet he's still every bit the asshole (by his own definition of the word)."

 

The author states "During Obama’s first term, I also went to graduate school for creative writing at progressive college, and I settled into my marriage with my wife, a Canadian and “goddamn liberal.” I can’t point to just one thing that pushed me left, but in Obama’s first term I had a change of heart, moving from a lifelong extreme into the bosom of conventional liberalism.". Yet he never makes an actual argument for "conventional liberalism". The whole thing simply comes off as the author being tremendously relieved that he is now part of the political mainstream, and that he can now fit in much more easily with other statists, like his "progressive college" friends and his "goddamn liberal" wife. The article seems to be an attempt to justify this... possibly more to himself than anyone else. Unfortunately, he never actually provides any logical justification.

[endostate]

[Pepin]

It is rather unimportant, just as unimportant as stories of atheists who fall into faith. The proclamation that someone such as Obama is capable of causing a change of heart is enough to tell you all that you need to know. If not, then what does such an admission reveal about the person, not just in the moment of change, but in regard to their life?

[darrenpollok]

Yeah, I read that article and imagined that it came about something like this:Editor:  "Hey Edwin, you know I'm gonna need an article from you by Friday, right?"Edwin:  "Yeah, but I'm just having a hard time coming up with ideas.  All the good 'Tea Party is Evil' and 'Obama is the Savior' article have been written."Editor:  "How about giving us some personal pespective?  Have you voted for Democrats your entire life?"

 

Edwin:  "Actually, no.  One time a friend of mine had me listen to a Ron Paul speech about the evils of US foreign policy and it really clicked with me.  I even voted for Ron Paul that election."Editor:  "Dude, go with it.  That practically writes itself.  Make sure you get a good picture of yourself now showing how happy Obama has made your life."Edwin:  "Got it, boss!" 

[P. Mason]

I think the bigger question is why all the anti-libertarian articles all of a sudden. Salon seems to be crapping these out once a month or so. Is it libertarian gives a reasoned denial to the left's use of force that the left cannot argue away? It puts the left into a bind since if one argues for the use of force then why get upset when the right does it. If one argues the government should regulate marriage then WHY get upset when the government does exactly that and decides gays cannot marry.

 

But by all means engage us. Libertarians are ninjas training for years and looking for fools to fight.

[Mithra]

I think the bigger question is why all the anti-libertarian articles all of a sudden. Salon seems to be crapping these out once a month or so. Is it libertarian gives a reasoned denial to the left's use of force that the left cannot argue away? It puts the left into a bind since if one argues for the use of force then why get upset when the right does it. If one argues the government should regulate marriage then WHY get upset when the government does exactly that and decides gays cannot marry.

 

But by all means engage us. Libertarians are ninjas training for years and looking for fools to fight.

 

I think that they're starting to feel some competition for the millennials. American Libertarians are on the rise, and they share most of their social ideas - gay marriage, for instance, and extend them further with the ending of drug prohibition, meaning that they might have to justify their failed economic policies. So, the only option they have left is spewing bilge and vitriol until they're blue in the face. 

 

It's also hilarious how utterly hypocritical websites like Salon are, writing articles like this while claiming to be liberal:

http://www.salon.com/2012/10/09/my_private_school_guilt/

[James Dean]

Just reminds me of something Stef sometimes says, which I think is a Gandhi quote ironically enough. "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." I think we have all seen a hell of a lot of ignoring and laughing, now we're just getting into the meaty bits of fighting. If what we're saying is causing this much of a turmoil in the system, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect liberty in our lifetimes. Wishful thinking, maybe. 

[Mike Fleming]

Seeing all these coming out means it's getting into the public conscience, opponents realise it's getting into the public conscience and realise they now have to fight it.  Unfortunately for them, that just gives more exposure to the ideas and while some will listen to the criticism, there will be a substantial amount who will decide to explore the ideas a bit.   And that's how we win.

 

Think of libertarianism/anarchism as something that is in the early stages of going viral.  If you think about it like the exponential curve, for the longest time we have been on the flat part, building a base.  Now it may be starting to turn up.   Has there been any other time in history when there have been so many attacks on liberty ideas?  I doubt it.  To me it's a great sign.  It gives me hope for humanity.  And while I agree with Stef generally about liberty taking generations, we may get to see a substantial amount of it, even if not total liberty, in our lifetimes.

[JamesP]

I am no longer a ballet dancer.

[Nerburg]

My one-time step-father posted this article on facebook, to which I responded:

 

 

 While he did shit all over political libertarians, I didn't see a single argument about why increasing State power is a good thing (which is the camp that he 'fled' to). Apparently the only reason people are drawn to any sort of notion about having a small state, or no state whatsoever, is that they're either crazy, selfish, an asshole, or under educated.

Yet he doesn't want to 'gloss over' the 'good things' about Libertarians, "They are generally supportive of the gay community, completely behind marijuana legalization and are often against ill-considered foreign wars" Let's look for the common link, shall we? Oh, it's that they're against the growth of State power affecting the personal and economic lives of the citizenry. What an absodamnedlutely ridiculous notion.

The author states, "I started losing respect for the movement while watching the financial meltdown." It's kind of funny, when Peter Schiff, defender of the 1%, 'Libertarian' extraordinaire predicts loudly and clearly, years before hand, exactly what's going to happen with the financial meltdown and 2008 housing bubble and the Statist media simply denies it.

All this article does is conflate racists, bigots, and terrified conspiracy theorists with the relatively simple idea that State Power is not a universal value, or good in general. 

"I can’t point to just one thing that pushed me left, but in Obama’s first term I had a change of heart, moving from a lifelong extreme into the bosom of conventional liberalism."

Wait... Wasn't this when we learned that Obama wasn't the socialist hippie we had all dreamed about? Didn't we have drone bombings, kill lists, expansion of war, bailout of the banks, turnarounds on the promise to tackle the issue of Gitmo, more State spending than in the entire history of the USA up to that point, and I'm sure I've forgotten quite a few things off the top of my head here. 

"the size of the federal government is almost irrelevant." If the size of the government doesn't matter, why not let the Libertarians have their way? If the size of the government doesn't matter, why not let the Totalitarians have their way? 

This author's (and he barely deserves that title, I wonder why and how his creative writing degree from a progressive college got him anywhere) entire argument is encapsulated by the idea that if some crazy people are associated with a philosophy or ideology or argument of some kind, that that argument is invalid. His own convictions, according to himself, weren't strong enough or well defined enough to hold in the face of a lack of argument, he basically got bullied into believing something else because his former associates were "Crazy". He hasn't even stated any arguments for 'conventional liberalism'.

That entire article is like if I tried to claim that Socialism was wrong because some environmentalists in Iceland didn't want to disturb the Elf habitat. Basically, I want your standards to be higher than this shitfest of an article.

 

Guess what I got back? "WHO WILL BUILD THE ROADS???"

 As I recall you never explained how your interpretation of Libertarianism would work unless everyone everywhere on Earth adopted it at once. If some geographic area decides that they don't need that darn stateist stuff they will almost immediately be run over by some state, if they have any resources at all.

What percentage of "Libertarians" agree on your definition of "Libertarian"?
Maybe civilization isn't an entirely bad idea.
Who in the world is going to maintain the f'ing roads, or don't you need roads in the libertarian utopia? Am I just responsible for the patch of road in front of my house? Bridges will be a real bitch.
Who's going to make sure your house is your house? Maybe you can just sit on the porch all day with an assault rifle or something.
Well gotta go

 

Thus was I tempted. This is the first time I'm confronting this guy about his liberal propaganda posts all over, which I was imbibed with as a child:

 

"How could you get a Stateless society without everyone overnight just waking up to the conclusion that Statism is bad? Wouldn't a State just take over if a group tries to be free?"

First of all, I don't believe that I'm going to live to see such a society as this is no doubt an inter-generational change. Secondly, and I know this is kind of a sophistic trick, but I think it's valuable. Your position is kind of analogous to a slave owner in the 1800s saying that unless everyone wakes up overnight and realizes that slavery is wrong, there's no point in advocating the emancipation of slaves; they'll just get taken over by another group of slave owners—a veritable vacuum of slaves.
In any case, admitting that a State would violently react to a group of free people is kind of proving my point, in that the State does not have moral value and those who idealize it are sort of worshiping power, and that it's entire purpose is to grow in power, which has nothing to do with protecting its citizens or providing them services. The historical record bears this out too—no states have ever survived and you can watch as State power grows and grows, until the body politic can no longer sustain it, which is when that society collapses. There are probably more nation-states in history than gods.

As for roads, it's not like the State builds them, they just use money taken at gunpoint to hire private companies which do. Look at technological and industrial progress in the last 100 years and you're telling me that companies which can launch a satellite into orbit that allows us to video chat across the earth are incapable of laying sand and Tarmac over flat ground? Talking here is more impressive to me than roads. As far as funding goes, well, don't factories want to export and import goods? Don't tolls exist to fund maintenance? Don't malls want people to be able to get to them? Don't people want to drive on them?And aren't the environmentalists who worry about carbon emissions from cars and trucks also advocating state roads? Maybe without the subsidies they wouldn't be possible and a large portion of the pollution problem would be solved, because roads weren't the real solution to human transportation. Perhaps someone would have already come up with more efficient methods of transportation that don't lead to environmental destruction and tons of wasted time waiting for a light to change color if all that money wasn't forced into roadbuilding (and check the stats, governments are by far the largest polluters in the world). We really can't top something that's been going on since Rome? A large part of not advocating state solutions is admitting the fact that neither I nor anyone else, including a central planner, know the best possible way to organize society (kind of a fundamental criticism of Statism).

The notion that there's no dispute resolution without a State is also fairly absurd. When was the last time you heard or experienced personally a good outcome from the State's dispute resolution mechanisms? You're throwing the utopia word around like I've got this magic thinking where a simple word is the solution to every problem... Oh, no wait, the magic word is "Government". When a 15th century peasant asks, "Where did the world come from?" and his local priest tells him, "God made it", we know that this is a non-answer which in fact prevents the truth from being pursued. When somebody says, "How can the poor be helped?" and another person says 'the State', we ought to be equally suspicious of this non-answer. Charity is like surgery: shooting the money cannon at a drunk isn't going to help him at all but rather exacerbate his situation.

I simply unpacked how bad that article was and asked you to have higher standards if you're trying to criticize an idea. The article preached conformity, made arguments through shit-slinging, and was a perfect example of the kind of circlejerk yes-saying that pushed me out of the left, which I was sort of raised with... You remember me? You were around for a lot of my formative years. Was I ever prone to not thinking things through or just accepting what people told me? Was I prone to accepting other people's conclusions about things without understanding them? I wasn't, which is why this kind of article, which come in vast quantities, made me question my opinions about what I had been taught in public school about the way society functions.

As far as what "Libertarian" means, obviously the different definitions are numerous. The article never defined it either but seemed to be using the term in the Ayn-randian sense of 'the only legitimate use for the state is the police, military, and law-courts', or perhaps constitutionalism. I don't fall into either of those categories and what percentage of self-defined Libertarians agree with me doesn't matter, but it's true they tend towards a belief that a smaller state is better to have than a larger one. The reverse is true for Liberals and Neocons.

There, how's that for an essay? Obviously it's no ironclad proof of anti-Statism, but I hope you don't think I'm just sitting on my thumbs going 'hurr durr the gubbamint'. 

[Sumeet]

I think it is fair to say that an increasing number attacks on ideas of liberty may be a sign of increasing recognition, which is a positive. I was also sorta wondering to what extent the writer of the article wrote it because he wanted to specifically write it, or whether he simply had to write an article for a "liberal" publication, and this is what he came up with. It's patently ludicrous, but of course in the same way that the vast majority of people on the planet believe patently ludicrous things, so not surprising at all.

I am no longer a ballet dancer.

 

Thus dies Tchaikovsky's dream of a truly definitive rendition of Swan Lake!