Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think Libertarianism appeals to people who see the masses as fools who'd vote themselves into bankruptcy if allowed.

What you mean is, it appeals to people who don't want to pay taxes for redistribution and/or government services that they can just buy private alternatives to. In other words, rich people.

In this regard, I tend to see a lot of merit in Libertarian arguments. We're a Republic and not a pure Democracy for a reason. A true Democracy would be a disaster.

One of the rules of libertarian self-interest is to cloak it in some high-minded principle. Like, "democracy would be a disaster," rather than "democracy would be a disaster for me."

But this lesson cuts both ways. Those "fuck the poor" sorts you describe, and the merchant class strivers behind them, have been pigs. They've taken too much for too long, and insulated themselves from the risk of their behaviors (Hi, Wall Street) to such an extent the statement, "the system is rigged" holds a lot of credibility.

In this regard, Libertarians are aligned against much of what the rich rely on to remain rich today: Rentier and Crony Capitalism.

"aligned" in the sense of, "willing to occasionally say something high-minded and critical about but not interested in otherwise addressing in any way"

Libertarians don't care about you, or your family. But they don't desire to find a way to fuck the poor over and make them their debt slaves. There is a fairness to libertarians. It's the coldest of comforts, but it's there.

The sort of majestic fairness that lets both rich and poor sleep under bridges, and leaves us all free to have armed guards who will shoot those who climb into our gated compounds.

Regarding the meaning of authoritarianism, I know. I apply a broader meaning.

"broader" in the sense of, "entirely different"

I think anyone who thinks he knows what best for his fellow man and therefore thinks he has the right to enforce rules against his fellow man has authoritarian tendencies. He may couch his position as benignly as he likes, but at core, he's a dangerously arrogant person.

I don't really think there are that many people who believe they think they know best for their fellow man and therefore think they have the right to enforce rules against them. I think people have complex ideas about what harms them, and seek to use politics to address what they see as externalities. For lefty environmentalists, they worry about pollution and seek to use government regulation to reduce it. For right-wing pro-lifers, they worry about modern culture's degradation of the traditional role of women and its endorsement by the government, and seek to use government regulation to outlaw abortion. In either case, they really think they are at risk of harm and are trying to use the government to protect themselves. If you don't care about the environment and are not sympathetic to environmentalists, then you discount the harms they see and complain that they are trying to control your life. If you don't care for traditional gender roles and want to treat women as equal to men, then you are not at all sympathetic to the harm seen by many social conservatives.

I think most people would do better to behave a lot differently than they do. But I feel much more strongly that they have the right to succeed or fail doing as they like, and I have no right to try to enshrine my personal tastes on how one should live in code or regulation of any kind. The right to free speech, where I might convince, cajole, manipulate, insult, or beg people to do as I think they should is all the right I have, or should have, over them.

That, and you want the state to protect your money and and ability to use it to preserve a variety of benefits you have that others don't. Which seems like such a natural state of affairs to you that you don't even see it as an open question.