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.
"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.
'. . . 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.
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.”
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.
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 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.
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".
The first few I came across were fellow white boys who understood the potential of computers/computing early enough to base their careers on it — AND didn't get stuck in the .com bubble — so were always ahead in advantages, have had their pick of jobs well into their 50s, etc. ... but could always internally spin it as getting what they deserved for making good choices independently.
Too bad the culture of the Coast Salish (a Pacific NW tribe) isn't much valued by libertarians. Their approach to property and power sharing would have been so very instructive.
Wasn't that a hierarchical, slave-holding society? Yes, they had the potlatch ceremony, where the wealthiest periodically gave a feast and party to show off their riches. But, at least as portrayed in The Dawn of Everything, the coastal tribes south on what's now the California coast, who were fiercely egalitarian, hated the NW tribes for their hierarchy and slave holding. On the other hand, the Pacific NW natives' ceremonial art is of far more current interest than the fine baskets of the California coast tribes.
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?
So good. Excellent. I’ve been listening to you for months and this article turned me into a paid subscriber. I hope this message spreads far and wide and meets the moment. Thank you for your work.
PS I love your writing style. I find it very effective.
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.
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!"
'. . . 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.
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
I also like the distinction that freedom means you can do what you want; liberty protects the rest of us from 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.
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 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.
It was always and only a lie- cryptofascism as G. Vidal tagged it
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!
I have never met a libertarian who wasn’t a rich white businessman. Funny coincidence. 🤨
The first few I came across were fellow white boys who understood the potential of computers/computing early enough to base their careers on it — AND didn't get stuck in the .com bubble — so were always ahead in advantages, have had their pick of jobs well into their 50s, etc. ... but could always internally spin it as getting what they deserved for making good choices independently.
Too bad the culture of the Coast Salish (a Pacific NW tribe) isn't much valued by libertarians. Their approach to property and power sharing would have been so very instructive.
Wasn't that a hierarchical, slave-holding society? Yes, they had the potlatch ceremony, where the wealthiest periodically gave a feast and party to show off their riches. But, at least as portrayed in The Dawn of Everything, the coastal tribes south on what's now the California coast, who were fiercely egalitarian, hated the NW tribes for their hierarchy and slave holding. On the other hand, the Pacific NW natives' ceremonial art is of far more current interest than the fine baskets of the California coast tribes.
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/
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?
So good. Excellent. I’ve been listening to you for months and this article turned me into a paid subscriber. I hope this message spreads far and wide and meets the moment. Thank you for your work.
PS I love your writing style. I find it very effective.
The rights may arise from the universe itself but they need a surveyor to enforce those rights 😎not so universal is it?? 🤣