My political leanings are approx. 70% libertarian and 30 conservative. I joined the Libertarian Party around 25 years ago, and quickly realized that some of their positions were just… bizarre. They wanted no borders (good luck with that), zero drug laws (which meant private companies could push heroin onto children), no hunting regs, a return to the gold standard, and the elimination of the FTC, OSHA, and all labor laws. A free-for-all. Anarchy, if you will. They didn’t seem to understand that a some regulations are absolutely necessary in order for a society to function in a reasonable & orderly manner. They were also skeptical of anything related to science (vaccines, economics, etc.). Eh, no thanks.
This is exactly the issue that drove Penn Jillette - after decades of promoting Libertarian principles - away from it.
mmm
ETA: I see that @Llama_Llogophile mentioned this upthread.
In general I think the horseshoe theory of politics is a horseshit theory of politics, an easy way for self-professed moderates to make themselves feel better about themselves. But there’s definitely something to what you say here.
There are a lot of radical positions that argue from first principles, whether it’s Marxist first principles or fundamentalist Christian first principles or Libertarian first principles. Rather than seeing the world as a messy, confusing place that invariably will require compromise and muddling (in Goethe’s words, “From the crooked timber of humanity nothing straight was ever made”), they see the problem as being muddled or wrong politics. If only the politics were based on simple and consistent principles, we could have a utopia!
When I was an adolescent and into my early twenties, I really wanted that sort of politics. I very briefly found Libertarianism alluring, with its two consistent principles; but its insistence on the primacy of private property eventually warned me off. Communitarian anarchism was also really appealing, but I’ve lost faith in humanity that we’d be able to maintain it without a cultural shift on the level of the shift from hunter-gatherer to agriculture. These days, I think we gotta muddle through, and I’m much less interested in a system based on consistent first principles than I am in a system that measurably improves lives.
The Libertarian party has nothing to offer in that regard. But it sure does have some shiny first principles!
Sure. But when it comes to Libertarians, we’re talking mostly about white men. For the most part, the laws suit us just fine no matter what part is in power. I flirted with libertarianism when I was in my early twenties, but I never voted for them because I didn’t think they’d ever win.
The first six letters: LIBERT, because my mind always fills in the “y”.
IMHO it goes one step further than that. Because those regulations are necessary, they are going to be imposed by somebody, whether it be the federal, state, or local government, a major corporation like Apple or Tesla or Google, or the leader of a local private organization of some sort (gang, religious congregation, whatever) in the event of a lack of regulations from higher up / larger organizations. It just isn’t possible to have a society without regulations. What’s actually up for debate is who gets to decide what those rules and regulations are.
Deep down, I suspect that the Libertarians realize that, and what they are actually upset about isn’t the lack of rules and regulations, it’s that they aren’t the ones in charge of making the decisions about what the rules are.
It’s the “I Don’t Wanna And You Can’t Make Me” party.
That message has a degree of continuing appeal, though sovereign citizens have drawn off a number of hard core zealots.
I don’t think of myself as a moderate, but I find the horseshoe theory to be a useful way to look at extremism. I know my leftist friends get pissed when I tell them communism and fascism are opposite sides of the same rotten coin.
I think they get pissed because it’s horseshit. Authoritarianism and collectivism are not on a continuum: you can have authoritarianism collectivism (Stalinism), and anti-authoritarian individualism (some kinds of libertarians), and authoritarian individualism (MAGA), and anti-authoritarian collectivism (socialist anarchism). If you conflate them, you’re obscuring super-important differences.
What happens in the real world, however, is that any economic theory that requires oppressing people who are on the losing side will lead to authoritarianism. Whether it’s Stalinism or Trumpism or any of the others, if (general) your theory requires that you need to unfairly screw over a large group of people, the only way that will get implemented is by authoritarianism.
That is why libertarianism doesn’t work. People will always have different interests. If you approach it from the standpoint of “the largest organizations (like the US federal government) don’t get to make rules”, what will happen is that the small players whose happiness requires making other people follow along with them will make their own local rules. That’s why “socialist anarchism” isn’t a thing. I’d wager that only way “socialist anarchism” has ever worked is when you have a single individual living Henry Thoreau at Walden pond style out in the middle of nowhere by themselves.
I noticed in the 70s how erstwhile self-identified Trotskyites had somehow become neo-cons. There was a continuity in the dogmatism and radicalism for radicalism’s sake.
I think, seeing as the libertarian movement has effectively ceased to exist since the rise of Trump as it’s supporters joined Maga, that is objectively the case.
But, they absolutely still exist. I haven’t gone to any meetings in 20 years or so, but am still on the email lists. They are organizing, trying to run candidates for many offices. Because US election rules make it so only two parties have any chance it was always a small group. Went to the state convention back in the 90s, was about 30 people. Nobody I know personally (an admittidly small group) has gone trumpy. I think you’re just seeing less media coverage.
But are they successful in doing so? I have always been a bit suspicious of groups that want to start off at the top without first growing their base by winning the lesser offices. Win some city elections, then maybe some county positions, then maybe some state representative elections etc.
Correction: Perhaps having previous electoral experience isn’t as good an idea as I thought. It seems that those Libertarian candidates with more experience election-wise did even worse than usual.
List of United States Libertarian Party presidential tickets - Wikipedia
Successful at getting elected? No. Once or twice to town council/or tiny town mayor. But do always have a dozen or so candidates for various state positions. One guy (always the same one) keeps running for state attorney general, he gets enough votes for the party to keep ballot status.
See Larry Niven, “Cloak of Anarchy”
I was active in the Libertarian party for nearly two decades, not just registered but a member (paying money) of the national, state , and county organizations, sometimes officer of the county organization, county representative of the state executive board, and delegate to the state and national conventions. I even met and married DesertWife* who was active before I was.
As I have said on this board before, Libertarians are no more a monolith than the Democrats are – or even Republicans for that matter. The two main factions are the anarcho-capitalists (Republican-lite) and the anarcho-socialists (Anarchist-lite). I was in the latter camp and among other things, the Wobblies were quite appealing to me.
Having said that, the Mises caucus has a firm grip on the party and I consider them at best more Republican-medium than -lite – they re the ones who invited fucking Trump to the national convention in 2024. I deactivated after DW died, mainly because I didn’t feel like doing anything, but also because I was tired of intra-party warfare. If I’d still been active in 2022 I surely would have quit in 2022. The caucus is, indeed, a bunch of selfish pricks but it was not always so.
*“I’m a Libertarian and so’s my wife!”
ISTM their fundamental philosophy prevents them from succeeding. If they are against large organizations with a bunch of members who only have an indirect say on the how the organization is governed, that is, by its very nature, going to prevent any such organization from being successful. And that is what they seem to believe.
Yeah but their relevance to US politics and level of support has dropped massively. I can’t actually find actual numbers to support that as Google sucks now. But like 20 years ago most conservatives I knew were self identified libertarian and the movement was massively high profile nationally (during all that Tea Party bs). Almost everyone involved in all that has jumped on the Maga train.
Right. It’s a matter of human nature being flawed. Now it’s true, we aren’t all assholes. But my guess is that for a society like that to succeed, it would have to be populated entirely by people with the moral character of someone like Jimmy Carter or better.