I love this. Let me go one step further: as an indigenous person, the fantasy that property precedes law, culture, and society is demented and proto-human, skipping over 200,000 years of sapiens evolution. That conceit is so transparent as to be worth scarcely more than a split second of our attention. Let's dispatch with it. Thank you for exploring the path we need to take from this scarcely imaginable confusion.
Exactly! Hunter gatherers own nothing but the clothes on their back, small personal adornments such as necklaces, and simple tools. The land their band occupies is seen as a communal resource. And the same is true in most indigenous societies, even the ones who farm. A family may own their house, but the land they farm is owned in common with everybody else in the village, and is managed communally (although each household may have a specific plot that they are permitted to farm).
There has never been a time in human history until very recently when all property was regarded as ownable!
On top of that, I’ve always wondered who takes care of the kids in Gault’s Gulch?
"It means understanding that taxation isn’t theft but the means by which we collectively provision for shared needs."
The libertarian focus on individual rights, completely inward facing, doesn't allow for acknowledgment of shared needs or obligations, so taxation has to be viewed as theft rather than the price of admission to a stable society
I paraphrase this as: "I got mine, so fuck you". Every time I hear a libertarian arguing on the internet, I can usually abstract their argument to that.
As someone who never got past playing footsie with libertarianism in my teens and early twenties, your essay feels like what I would think if I were as smart and well read as you! Thank you for spelling it all out so clearly. Your concision and clarity of thought is nonpareil.
I’ve always admired this humorous take on Ayn Rand and libertarianism, and I hope those who read this will, too:
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
'. . . freedom is not the absence of constraint but the presence of just institutions that enable human flourishing.' That's it in a nutshell for me. Excellent article. Thank you.
Thank you for this primer. I have always wondered why the newest power aristocracy had zero interest in common good, I mean, the robber barons built libraries and schools. You would think the tech oligarchs would be interested in giving back to their nation. Now I know why. I had not thought libertarianism out to its natural end, nor did I realize how much the role of property ownership founded the philosophy. Seeing the philosophy in action is frightening. Until I saw this iteration of libertarianism, I was drawn to it as a champion of freedom, an antidote to the moralism forced upon others that Christian nationalism embraces. (Got a lot of experience with that here in TX. Wilks and Dunn have SO much power). This is why the Theil anti-Christ tour fascinates me. I assume it’s his way of marrying at least two of the power factions of Republicans (Libertarian Tech Bros and Christian Nationalism). Throw in figures like Carlson normalizing Nazis, and voila! The three main power constructs for Republicans is suddenly a cohesive alliance, when before they seemed like odd bedfellows. Tech anarcho-capitalists corner the financials, Christian nationalism cements the moral justification- enlisting the surety of God for buy-in with the everyday citizen, and extreme racism provides the muscle on the ground and an excuse to embrace eugenics.
This may be your best piece yet. I wish I had this when I was asking libertarians on tumblr ten years ago thing like ‘who is going to build the roads?’. The most common response was that people would work together voluntarily. It was so remarkably naive and I couldn’t get past the fact they truly believed it. The whole ideology felt like a fever dream.
Another difficulty for libertarians is determining what constitutes a fair playing field and who polices it? Rules for exchange must protect the fairness of the game, if simple power alone is to be avoided.
Does a fair playing field exist? If someone is to give out the red or yellow cards, who?
Even Ayn Rand got mired in this one. Her Atlas Shrugged showed the consequences of American Libertarianism in decidedly awful detail.
Who can make people play fair? Is the sticking point.
I like this a lot. During my early college days, i went through a libertarian phase. I was young, smart, and terribly naive. It lasted until i realized that a libertarian paradise would last just long enough for the richest libertarians to buy the poorest judges.
My background is from rural Arkansas. My cousin's family continue to farm our Grandfather's land which he bought in 1912. Mostly Soybeans and Rice. Since the Trump tariffs and China's moving their purchases from the US to South America the price of both have declined to the point that 30% of the farms in Arkansas either are, or are planning to, file for bankruptcy. Libertarianism will then allow large corporations and individuals with wealth to buy the land and, perhaps, allow the family to farm the land as tenants. Right out of "Atlas Shrugged". Property rights rule, but fairness and liberty suffer.
Your article is very important and, for those of us who have struggled with the excitement of Libertarianism, it opens up a much better understanding of the theory. Keep up the good work.
How, in God's name, do we get more people to read your stuff?
I recall having this conversation with an "anti-government" employee about ten years ago. I challenged him to consider who might have balancing power and tools to check a powerful rogue corporation or industry.
It's "me" versus "we" held in tension.
As a person that resists tyranny including ideological tyranny with the strong belief in the welfare of the community (community writ large to include the earth and its inhabitants as well as fellow humans aka the good steward) as the higher good, it's that tension and balancing act of those two competing ends that centers a higher order. Tension and balancing is "hard" but essential.
I always believed that libertarianism was an immature, grasping, dog eat dog, zero sum philosophy at its logical conclusion and we are witnessing government capture essentially by industry lead by 12 year old boys that have amassed enormous wealth and barely checked power that grows daily. Our task is to undo this. Thank you for giving me something to think about this morning.
As usual, brilliant illuminating breakdown @Mike Brock
I wrote a less historically based essay on this topic, more from an emotional view point from someone waking up from the con (I was never libertarian, but I held beliefs about what I “should” be able to to do on my own, that we are independently responsible for our “lot in life” ignoring the systems and inter-relatedness of it all.
Just an amazing post Mike, as always. This 'graph near the end is poignant:
"The question for those who still identify as libertarian is simple: Do you want to be part of this? Do you want your philosophy to provide cover for people explicitly working to end democratic self-governance? Do you want your arguments about freedom to be weaponized by those building a new aristocracy?"
The tech leaders who control the platforms, the main media platforms, all the centi-billionaires, they have all chosed this option, and are pressing the accelerator to the floor.
Early in my life, I never flirted with this, but I knew those who did, and to a one, if you extract their thinking, it was all: "The winner is who has all the things". I am convinced this is why they are so into gold as the basis for money, because there is a finite number of atoms of Gold on the planet, and thus, it is possible for one person to "own it all".
I love this. Let me go one step further: as an indigenous person, the fantasy that property precedes law, culture, and society is demented and proto-human, skipping over 200,000 years of sapiens evolution. That conceit is so transparent as to be worth scarcely more than a split second of our attention. Let's dispatch with it. Thank you for exploring the path we need to take from this scarcely imaginable confusion.
Exactly! Hunter gatherers own nothing but the clothes on their back, small personal adornments such as necklaces, and simple tools. The land their band occupies is seen as a communal resource. And the same is true in most indigenous societies, even the ones who farm. A family may own their house, but the land they farm is owned in common with everybody else in the village, and is managed communally (although each household may have a specific plot that they are permitted to farm).
There has never been a time in human history until very recently when all property was regarded as ownable!
On top of that, I’ve always wondered who takes care of the kids in Gault’s Gulch?
Those babies need to go out and earn their milk!
Thank you for this excellent piece.
"It means understanding that taxation isn’t theft but the means by which we collectively provision for shared needs."
The libertarian focus on individual rights, completely inward facing, doesn't allow for acknowledgment of shared needs or obligations, so taxation has to be viewed as theft rather than the price of admission to a stable society
I paraphrase this as: "I got mine, so fuck you". Every time I hear a libertarian arguing on the internet, I can usually abstract their argument to that.
"Don't tread on me! Tread on him!"
As someone who never got past playing footsie with libertarianism in my teens and early twenties, your essay feels like what I would think if I were as smart and well read as you! Thank you for spelling it all out so clearly. Your concision and clarity of thought is nonpareil.
I’ve always admired this humorous take on Ayn Rand and libertarianism, and I hope those who read this will, too:
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
-John Rogers
And sadly, these tools loved botb.
'. . . freedom is not the absence of constraint but the presence of just institutions that enable human flourishing.' That's it in a nutshell for me. Excellent article. Thank you.
Thank you for this primer. I have always wondered why the newest power aristocracy had zero interest in common good, I mean, the robber barons built libraries and schools. You would think the tech oligarchs would be interested in giving back to their nation. Now I know why. I had not thought libertarianism out to its natural end, nor did I realize how much the role of property ownership founded the philosophy. Seeing the philosophy in action is frightening. Until I saw this iteration of libertarianism, I was drawn to it as a champion of freedom, an antidote to the moralism forced upon others that Christian nationalism embraces. (Got a lot of experience with that here in TX. Wilks and Dunn have SO much power). This is why the Theil anti-Christ tour fascinates me. I assume it’s his way of marrying at least two of the power factions of Republicans (Libertarian Tech Bros and Christian Nationalism). Throw in figures like Carlson normalizing Nazis, and voila! The three main power constructs for Republicans is suddenly a cohesive alliance, when before they seemed like odd bedfellows. Tech anarcho-capitalists corner the financials, Christian nationalism cements the moral justification- enlisting the surety of God for buy-in with the everyday citizen, and extreme racism provides the muscle on the ground and an excuse to embrace eugenics.
I also like the distinction that freedom means you can do what you want; liberty protects the rest of us from you.
This may be your best piece yet. I wish I had this when I was asking libertarians on tumblr ten years ago thing like ‘who is going to build the roads?’. The most common response was that people would work together voluntarily. It was so remarkably naive and I couldn’t get past the fact they truly believed it. The whole ideology felt like a fever dream.
Another difficulty for libertarians is determining what constitutes a fair playing field and who polices it? Rules for exchange must protect the fairness of the game, if simple power alone is to be avoided.
Does a fair playing field exist? If someone is to give out the red or yellow cards, who?
Even Ayn Rand got mired in this one. Her Atlas Shrugged showed the consequences of American Libertarianism in decidedly awful detail.
Who can make people play fair? Is the sticking point.
Who prints the money?
I like this a lot. During my early college days, i went through a libertarian phase. I was young, smart, and terribly naive. It lasted until i realized that a libertarian paradise would last just long enough for the richest libertarians to buy the poorest judges.
My background is from rural Arkansas. My cousin's family continue to farm our Grandfather's land which he bought in 1912. Mostly Soybeans and Rice. Since the Trump tariffs and China's moving their purchases from the US to South America the price of both have declined to the point that 30% of the farms in Arkansas either are, or are planning to, file for bankruptcy. Libertarianism will then allow large corporations and individuals with wealth to buy the land and, perhaps, allow the family to farm the land as tenants. Right out of "Atlas Shrugged". Property rights rule, but fairness and liberty suffer.
Your article is very important and, for those of us who have struggled with the excitement of Libertarianism, it opens up a much better understanding of the theory. Keep up the good work.
How, in God's name, do we get more people to read your stuff?
I recall having this conversation with an "anti-government" employee about ten years ago. I challenged him to consider who might have balancing power and tools to check a powerful rogue corporation or industry.
It's "me" versus "we" held in tension.
As a person that resists tyranny including ideological tyranny with the strong belief in the welfare of the community (community writ large to include the earth and its inhabitants as well as fellow humans aka the good steward) as the higher good, it's that tension and balancing act of those two competing ends that centers a higher order. Tension and balancing is "hard" but essential.
I always believed that libertarianism was an immature, grasping, dog eat dog, zero sum philosophy at its logical conclusion and we are witnessing government capture essentially by industry lead by 12 year old boys that have amassed enormous wealth and barely checked power that grows daily. Our task is to undo this. Thank you for giving me something to think about this morning.
Or there's the possibility of sliding right past Locke and Mill into the waiting arms of Kropotkin and Proudhon.
I'm also reminded of https://leftycartoons.com/2010/06/29/the-24-types-of-libertarian/
It was always and only a lie- cryptofascism as G. Vidal tagged it
This is an important essay. I’ve always seen libertarianism as hateful, cruel, selfish and exploitative.
I don’t want the powerful few — mostly enjoying their position via winning the birth lottery — to control my ability to live.
As usual, brilliant illuminating breakdown @Mike Brock
I wrote a less historically based essay on this topic, more from an emotional view point from someone waking up from the con (I was never libertarian, but I held beliefs about what I “should” be able to to do on my own, that we are independently responsible for our “lot in life” ignoring the systems and inter-relatedness of it all.
It’s pretty short - . https://peacefulreturn.substack.com/p/decoding-fascism
Just an amazing post Mike, as always. This 'graph near the end is poignant:
"The question for those who still identify as libertarian is simple: Do you want to be part of this? Do you want your philosophy to provide cover for people explicitly working to end democratic self-governance? Do you want your arguments about freedom to be weaponized by those building a new aristocracy?"
The tech leaders who control the platforms, the main media platforms, all the centi-billionaires, they have all chosed this option, and are pressing the accelerator to the floor.
Early in my life, I never flirted with this, but I knew those who did, and to a one, if you extract their thinking, it was all: "The winner is who has all the things". I am convinced this is why they are so into gold as the basis for money, because there is a finite number of atoms of Gold on the planet, and thus, it is possible for one person to "own it all".
Keep these posts rolling in!