# What is the most arrogant political philosophy of all? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 9, 2017, 7:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706 "2017-01-09T07:40:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706/101 "2017-01-14T05:43:48Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > . . . It’s not ‘as long as I am more free’, but it is as long as \*\*everyone \*\*is more free. . . . While many libertarians take this viewpoint, it is unfortunately true that many take only the “as long as I am more free” viewpoint. Considering other people’s freedoms is, to some of these people, too “collectivist” an idea. Only their own freedom is important to them. (And even that is not really “arrogant.” Some might call it limited or narrow in scope. But a certain amount of self-concern is not at all irrational; we all do it to some degree!) ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706/102 "2017-01-14T08:16:24Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > While many libertarians take this viewpoint, it is unfortunately true that many take only the “as long as I am more free” viewpoint. Considering other people’s freedoms is, to some of these people, too “collectivist” an idea. Only their own freedom is important to them. > > (And even that is not really “arrogant.” Some might call it limited or narrow in scope. But a certain amount of self-concern is not at all irrational; we all do it to some degree!) But how many libertarians have devised a system in which only they are free, and everybody else isn’t? That’s not libertarian, it’s totalitarian. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706/103 "2017-01-14T15:02:30Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Just to be clear, you think you are free to walk across any field in the US? Any field in the UK, Germany or China? Hint: You’re not. > > None of those countries is Libertarian. Just to be clearer, he said nothing to indicate that he was free to do any of that, or that Libertarians would be the only ones to restrict that freedom. He specifically said that he was allowed to do it in his homeland, and gave a link to the legal definition of “freedom” in his homeland that explained why. edited to add: One of the arrogances of Libertarians is the assumption that they, and they alone, have a lock on the definition of “freedom”. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706/104 "2017-01-14T17:27:45Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Just to be clear, you think you are free to walk across any field in the US? Any field in the UK, Germany or China? Hint: You’re not. Yes, I do. Because I’m an idiot who thinks Swedish law is applicable in the United States. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706/105 "2017-01-14T17:31:24Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > While many libertarians take this viewpoint, it is unfortunately true that many take only the “as long as I am more free” viewpoint. Considering other people’s freedoms is, to some of these people, too “collectivist” an idea. Only their own freedom is important to them. Despite my arguments with libertarianism, I don’t agree with this. In my experience, most libertarians do believe everyone should have the same freedom. The problem is they believe everyone should only have their version of freedom. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706/106 "2017-01-14T17:38:36Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > All systems can deny you your freedom. And all systems will have their pros and cons in various ways. But again, this doesn’t speak to the relative arrogance of the belief system. But in my system, I can’t set policy by myself. Policies are set by the majority. Saying that you will live by the views of the majority is not arrogance. That’s not how libertarianism works. A libertarian says that nobody can walk across his field. It doesn’t matter if everyone else wants to be able to walk across private property. The libertarian says _“It doesn’t matter what all of you think. Private property is protected even if the majority don’t like it. I don’t have to obey your rules. But all of you have to obey my rules.”_ ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706/107 "2017-01-14T20:31:08Z")
> [@Corry\_El](#): > > Your experiences with libertarians are what they are, and as I’ve said my experience also is that people who make a big deal of calling themselves libertarian or are closely associated with the capital L party tend to be doctrinaire and simplistic. My experiences with libertarians involve actively being one for nearly 20 years. In that time my personal beliefs ranged from near anarchy to more practical. So yes, I know that there is a range of libertarian thinking. But I can say with confidence that I understand how libertarians think at least as well as most active libertarians. > [@Corry\_El](#): > > However again you see their ideas by way of your own assumptions, and definitions which plenty of non-extreme people don’t share. You don’t know my assumptions. You assume I hold certain assumptions based solely on the fact that I disagree with libertarianism. That’s arrogance: the assumption that anyone who doesn’t share your viewpoint is simply wrong-headed. Ultimately libertarian discourse is about witnessing, not debate. > [@Corry\_El](#): > > For example I wouldn’t call myself a libertarian particularly but I don’t agree that the degree of taxation has little to do with liberty. It’s got more to do with it than anything else practically speaking in a society where we already agree people can basically express themselves (in speech, religion, art etc) as they please. If you think those things are universally agreed upon you should start paying more attention. > [@Corry\_El](#): > > We debate more seriously the extent to which people’s property is really theirs, and property rights are fundamental to liberty. Note, that doesn’t mean I oppose any taxation. That’s again the kind of argument at the extreme you might encounter with real people calling themselves libertarian. But is not relevant to the everyday practical political issue in US politics whether we’d would be better off a bit more collectivist or a bit less collectivist. I’d say the latter. You might say the former. Neither position is ‘arrogant’. Someone might say my position is just ‘conservative’ or ‘rightist’ rather than ‘libertarian’ but they don’t really differ in terms of that incremental view, unless we just _define_ libertarianism as being extreme about such things. As I’ve said, there’s a wide variation of views within libertarianism. Practically speaking though, the only tenets of modern libertarianism that really matters are smaller government and lower taxes, even in cases where it’s objectively shown to create more harm than good. If you don’t hold those as ideals above all other concerns you’re going to be in conflict with the major thrust of libertarian thinking. > [@Corry\_El](#): > > Likewise I don’t accept your definition of liberty as including the positive right to receive things from others Full stop. I never said anything about positive rights. I said that societies that provide things like public education and healthcare are generally more free than those that don’t. The fact that you leap to “positive rights” just shows that you’re more interested in witnessing than discussion. You have stock apologetics ready for the strawman arguments you’re hoping to hear, and you use them regardless of what’s actually said. It’s like Searle’s Chinese Room: we can’t know that you understand anything, because you’re jsut giving stock responses to inputs. > [@Corry\_El](#): > > and see no arrogance in my adherence to the older definition where liberty is about what you or I can do, not what others are forced to do on our behalf. I accept the practical reality in a modern mixed capitalist/socialist society like ours that some people will be be forced to give some of their property to others. But that’s what it is, a reduction in liberty for the perceived common good. There’s no law of ‘conservation of liberty’ by which the recipients have more liberty. There’s less liberty, but a hoped for greater common good. Hence a trade off, rather than the automatic ‘win-win’ implied by your construct. More witnessing. There’s currently a thread in the pit for this if you really want to go down that path. > [@Bone](#): > > You misinterpret. It’s not ‘as long as I am more free’, but it is as long as \*\*everyone \*\*is more free. I don’t want to force another to do something just as I don’t want them to force me to do something. I want us to all come to agreement that this is the best way to do things - even accepting that people will disagree. I think you have to stretch the definition of the word arrogant to make the claim you’re making. No, I’m not misinterpreting. It’s plainly obvious that libertarian ideals will only benefit the small percentage of people that already have wealth and privilege by removing obstacles to acquiring more wealth and privilege. Middle class people like me (and presumably you) will certainly suffer a loss of liberty by making them more dependent on corporations for things like roads and education rather than a government that has some degree of transparency and accountability. Representative governments aren’t even close perfect, but at least the people get a voice, a chance to be heard. Everyone is **not** more free in Libertopia. > [@standingwave](#): > > That’s how Penn Jillette describes it: \*“My whole take on libertarianism is simply that I don’t know what’s best for other people.” > \* But that’s exactly what libertarians say: that they know what’s best for everyone. And it doesn’t matter that the vast majority of people would objectively have less liberty as long as they pay less taxes. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Despite my arguments with libertarianism, I don’t agree with this. In my experience, most libertarians do believe everyone should have the same freedom. The problem is they believe everyone should only have their version of freedom. Yes, the rich and poor are equally forbidden to sleep under bridges, or free to obtain whatever level of education or health care they can afford. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706/108 "2017-01-14T20:55:05Z")
> [@panache45](#): > > But how many libertarians have devised a system in which only they are free, and everybody else isn’t? That’s not libertarian, it’s totalitarian. Not so much that, as they (this subset) just don’t care. For instance, they don’t care about you having to have a dog license…because they don’t have a dog. They wouldn’t want totalitarianism, because that would certainly leak over into their lives. But they just don’t give a poop about lesser regulations and restrictions that only affect other people. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Despite my arguments with libertarianism, I don’t agree with this. In my experience, most libertarians do believe everyone should have the same freedom. The problem is they believe everyone should only have their version of freedom. Well, I can certainly attest to some of these types, having met them, interacted with them on forums similar to this, read their letters to the editor, etc. I accept that they may be a very small minority (but my personal sampling puts them as a significant constituent.) These are the ones who, for instance, oppose clean air and water regulations – unless they, themselves, come to live near a polluted stream, at which point they hold that companies should not be allowed to dump chemicals. It isn’t exactly that they only thought others should be free; it’s that their focus on who should be free changed from the companies to the citizens living nearby, based on their own personal circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![Corry\_El](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecae2f/32.png) [@Corry\_El](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Corry_El)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706/109 "2017-01-14T23:04:32Z")
> [@PigArcher](#): > > The fact that you leap to “positive rights” just shows that you’re more interested in witnessing than discussion. You have stock apologetics ready for the strawman arguments you’re hoping to hear, and you use them regardless of what’s actually said. It’s like Searle’s Chinese Room: we can’t know that you understand anything, because you’re jsut giving stock responses to inputs. You seem awfully eager to jump down my throat for somebody more interested in discussion and less in ‘witnessing’ (whatever that means). 🙂 Anyhow, the thread is about arrogant _philosophies_ so is not limited to your interactions with particular people calling themselves libertarians, and my response is not invalidated because I haven’t ‘witnessed’ (normal sense of the word) your debates with libertarians. You also could have saved space in your long response on tangents like Chinese Rooms etc. and spent it on explaining further what you’re actually talking about in terms of ‘public education’ (taxpayer support for education, govt monopoly on education, ‘free’ education to high school, to college or post grad?) and ‘healthcare’ (what degree of public involvement/support other than zero?). And in general, public benefits are often justified by the left as people’s rights, positive rights. It’s not ‘arrogant’ to assume that’s what an anti-libertarian means when they claim liberty is increased by more collectivism. The idea that freedom of speech say would be increased in the US by somewhat increasing social spending is a puzzling and unusual argument I can’t take blame for not guessing, if that’s what you meant. And again I think you should have spent less space scolding and more space explaining why you think basic non-economic liberties are contested as much as economic liberty, again let’s use the US just as example. Lots of people now want to pretend they don’t agree about anything and the other side is evil, but I see much more of a basic consensus on say first amendment rights than the degree of consensus about property rights, particularly as it relates to taxation and redistribution. I didn’t deny you might debate with libertarians who hopelessly dream of a govt which only spends a few % of GDP. And those people might be arrogant (or still not be). It doesn’t make it arrogant to want to go in a relatively more libertarian less collectivist direction. The ‘philosophy’ of libertarianism as you seem to say yourself is not limited to extreme and unrealistic versions. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2017, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706/110 "2017-01-15T05:58:12Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But in my system, I can’t set policy by myself. Policies are set by the majority. Saying that you will live by the views of the majority is not arrogance. And why can’t a libertarian advocate for change towards more libertarian rules, while at the same time respect the laws as they are? It’s what I do - it’s what I think most mainstream libertarians do in this country. A libertarian can’t set policy by themselves - that’s dictatorship. > [@](#): > > That’s not how libertarianism works. A libertarian says that nobody can walk across his field. It doesn’t matter if everyone else wants to be able to walk across private property. The libertarian says _“It doesn’t matter what all of you think. Private property is protected even if the majority don’t like it. I don’t have to obey your rules. But all of you have to obey my rules.”_ In this country, denying access to private property comports to libertarian beliefs AND is consistent with the rules that the majority of people have agreed to via our laws. Win / Win. My point isn’t to argue why libertarian beliefs are better or worse than others - but that they need not be arrogant and often are not. > [@PigArcher](#): > > Everyone is not more free in Libertopia. Regardless of whether this is true or not - how does this result in libertarian beliefs being the most arrogant? ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2017, 6:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706/111 "2017-01-15T06:05:56Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Not so much that, as they (this subset) just don’t care. For instance, they don’t care about you having to have a dog license…because they don’t have a dog. They wouldn’t want totalitarianism, because that would certainly leak over into their lives. But they just don’t give a poop about lesser regulations and restrictions that only affect other people. In my experience libertarians are _constantly_ arguing about “lesser regulations and restrictions”, regardless of whom they affect. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2017, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706/112 "2017-01-15T06:33:48Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > The issue is that libertarians have one definition of freedom. Other people have different ideas of what freedom is. > > For example, what if I’m taking a walk in the country and I want to walk across an open field? I don’t plan on taking anything from the field or damaging it in any way. Am I free to walk across the field? > > A libertarian would say no; the owner of the field has the right to prohibit people from entering it. You have to have prior permission from the field’s owner or you’re committing the crime of trespassing. The government in a libertarian society protects property rights and will arrest trespassers. > > But I’m not a libertarian. I’m a Swede who grew up in [a legal system](http://www.swedishepa.se/Enjoying-nature/The-Right-of-Public-Access/) where people are free to travel across private land. > > Can a libertarian system deny me my freedom? Should people who don’t agree with libertarian property rights have to abide by the rules of libertarian property rights? Why does the libertarian get to tell me I have to abide by his version of freedom rather than me getting to tell the libertarian he has to abide by my version of freedom? > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Yes, I do. Because I’m an idiot who thinks Swedish law is applicable in the United States. In case you missed it, you’re “this is the problem with libertarianism” is the “problem” with every system except the one in Sweden. Every western, liberal country proclaims to be in favor of freedom. But how many follow the Swedish system? If you want to criticize Libertarianism, you would be advised to criticize it for things that are unique to it, or that at least are not issues with almost every other system on the planet. > [@czarchasm](#): > > Just to be clearer, he said nothing to indicate that he was free to do any of that, or that Libertarians would be the only ones to restrict that freedom. He specifically said that he was allowed to do it in his homeland, and gave a link to the legal definition of “freedom” in his homeland that explained why. > edited to add: One of the arrogances of Libertarians is the assumption that they, and they alone, have a lock on the definition of “freedom”. See above. Name me one system that recognizes other forms of freedom that it does not. That doesn’t think it’s definition is the best one. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2017, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706/113 "2017-01-15T16:34:32Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > In case you missed it, you’re “this is the problem with libertarianism” is the “problem” with every system except the one in Sweden. Every western, liberal country proclaims to be in favor of freedom. But how many follow the Swedish system? If you want to criticize Libertarianism, you would be advised to criticize it for things that are unique to it, or that at least are not issues with almost every other system on the planet. > > See above. Name me one system that recognizes other forms of freedom that it does not. That doesn’t think it’s definition is the best one. Other systems don’t make the claims libertarianism does. Majoritarians don’t claim they have maximum freedom; they’ll openly say they have some freedoms and don’t have others. Libertarians deny this applies to them. They claim they are the most free system possible and use this as justification for their beliefs. This is, as you point out, the claim that libertarians say is unique to them. I was rebutting those claims but pointing to an example of a freedom that exists in a real world system but which would not exist in a libertarian system. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2017, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706/114 "2017-01-15T16:55:32Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > And why can’t a libertarian advocate for change towards more libertarian rules, while at the same time respect the laws as they are? It’s what I do - it’s what I think most mainstream libertarians do in this country. A libertarian can’t set policy by themselves - that’s dictatorship. But what about the libertarian ideal? What are libertarians trying to achieve? Suppose I was a monarchist. I believe America should have a hereditary ruler as its head of state. And this monarch should have real powers to rule. Obviously, I can’t just declare somebody is the King of America and expect people to start following his orders. So I have to work within the existing system and try to persuade a majority of the people that they should adopt monarchy as our political system. I’m going to have to use majoritarian democracy because that’s the political system we have. But my goal is to establish a monarchy. And once that monarch sits on his throne, the political system will be changed. The monarch will not be subject to majoritarian authority. What’s the libertarian equivalent? Do libertarians envision a system where people are perpetually subject to majority rule, as they are now? Or do they envision a system where there are essential freedoms which are not subject to majority rule? If it’s the former, then libertarianism doesn’t really exist as a distinct political philosophy. It’s just a form of majoritarianism. If it’s the latter, then libertarians are using majoritarian means within a majoritarian system to change it into a non-majoritarian system. There’s nothing wrong with that. But they should acknowledge they’re doing this and be open about what they’re proposing. They shouldn’t claim that the changes they’re seeking are minor ones and the overall system will remain the same. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2017, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706/115 "2017-01-15T19:57:35Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > . . . What’s the libertarian equivalent? Do libertarians envision a system where people are perpetually subject to majority rule, as they are now? Or do they envision a system where there are essential freedoms which are not subject to majority rule? . . . The latter, sort of. They envision something akin to the constitution, which puts severe limits on what the majority can legislate. In that sense, we already have a system where there are freedoms not subject to majority rule. How exactly this new constitution would be enforced is one of libertarianism’s most glaring shortcomings. What if a bunch of bad people violated it, perhaps by drafting an ordnance seizing property in order to build a dam, because of a severe drought. Our government could do that without breathing hard, but under the imagined libertarian rules, that would be illegal. But the “Community Organization for Water for Survival” does it, “illegally.” Kicks farmer Smitty out of his house, builds the dam, floods Smitty’s old fields, water for the community, everybody benefits except Smitty. They even pay him fair market value for it. What is his recourse? How could he have prevented it? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706/116 "2017-01-16T18:51:19Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > The latter, sort of. They envision something akin to the constitution, which puts severe limits on what the majority can legislate. In that sense, we already have a system where there are freedoms not subject to majority rule. > > How exactly this new constitution would be enforced is one of libertarianism’s most glaring shortcomings. What if a bunch of bad people violated it, perhaps by drafting an ordnance seizing property in order to build a dam, because of a severe drought. Our government could do that without breathing hard, but under the imagined libertarian rules, that would be illegal. > > But the “Community Organization for Water for Survival” does it, “illegally.” Kicks farmer Smitty out of his house, builds the dam, floods Smitty’s old fields, water for the community, everybody benefits except Smitty. They even pay him fair market value for it. What is his recourse? How could he have prevented it? My guess would be that what libertarians are ultimately seeking would be a set of amendments added to the present Constitution. These amendments would cover the basic tenets of libertarianism by strengthening property rights and prohibiting an array of government actions. Of course, there’s nothing in a our current system that would prevent us from enacting these amendments (or enacting equivalent legislation). But I believe libertarians are ultimately seeking to enact these as permanent amendments, that are not subject to future amendment. (Currently there is only one part of the Constitution that can’t be amended; the requirement that each state has an equal number of Senators.) That’s the fundamental difference between libertarians and majoritarians. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2017, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706/117 "2017-01-16T20:52:30Z")
It’s certainly true that many libertarians argue for improving the U.S. Constitution (or merely interpreting it more restrictively, such as overturning the current view on the commerce clause.) These tend to be somewhat more moderate, and are willing to work for limited gains and limited goals. A hell of a lot of them, though, envision something much deeper, with vastly deeper cuts in what the U.S., states, counties, and cities can do. It would go beyond amendments, and require a completely new way of doing business entirely. These are the guys who verge up against anarchism (and a very few are anarchists entirely.) The former, at least, have clearly specified tactics to achieve what they want. Elections of representatives, proposal and passage of amendments, appointment of Supreme Court justices who will interpret government power restrictively, and so on. The latter don’t even seem to have a pathway to success defined. They seem to rely a little too much on “then a miracle occurs” without specifying a real program. I have a fair amount of respect for the former group, but suggest that the latter are too disorganized (well, yeah, anarchists, disorganized, duh!) to earn much respect. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706/118 "2017-01-17T05:05:53Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But what about the libertarian ideal? What are libertarians trying to achieve? > > … > > What’s the libertarian equivalent? Do libertarians envision a system where people are perpetually subject to majority rule, as they are now? Or do they envision a system where there are essential freedoms which are not subject to majority rule? I don’t know what all other libertarians have as their ideal, but I personally envision a system similar to how we have now, with stronger constitutional protections for various things, overturning certain SCOTUS precedents, etc. A libertarian is not an anarchist - there must be a government and there is no superior way than some form of majoritariansim. But I reiterate - this is about the belief system itself, and doesn’t address why it is more arrogant than other systems. > [@](#): > > If it’s the latter, then libertarians are using majoritarian means within a majoritarian system to change it into a non-majoritarian system. There’s nothing wrong with that. But they should acknowledge they’re doing this and be open about what they’re proposing. They shouldn’t claim that the changes they’re seeking are minor ones and the overall system will remain the same. You mean like the Free State Project? That’s probably a blend of both, but it is certainly out in the open. A belief system that says, hey, let’s all do this together, let’s all agree that this is the best way…that’s not arrogance at all. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 7:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706/119 "2017-01-17T07:14:46Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But what about the libertarian ideal? What are libertarians trying to achieve? > > Suppose I was a monarchist. I believe America should have a hereditary ruler as its head of state. And this monarch should have real powers to rule. > > Obviously, I can’t just declare somebody is the King of America and expect people to start following his orders. So I have to work within the existing system and try to persuade a majority of the people that they should adopt monarchy as our political system. I’m going to have to use majoritarian democracy because that’s the political system we have. > > But my goal is to establish a monarchy. And once that monarch sits on his throne, the political system will be changed. The monarch will not be subject to majoritarian authority. > > What’s the libertarian equivalent? Do libertarians envision a system where people are perpetually subject to majority rule, as they are now? Or do they envision a system where there are essential freedoms which are not subject to majority rule? > > If it’s the former, then libertarianism doesn’t really exist as a distinct political philosophy. It’s just a form of majoritarianism. > > If it’s the latter, then libertarians are using majoritarian means within a majoritarian system to change it into a non-majoritarian system. There’s nothing wrong with that. But they should acknowledge they’re doing this and be open about what they’re proposing. They shouldn’t claim that the changes they’re seeking are minor ones and the overall system will remain the same. It’s the former, so I guess Conservatism and Progressivism don’t exist either then. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2017, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706/120 "2017-01-17T16:48:33Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No, I think the claim is valid. The basic foundation of libertarianism is that there are some things the government shouldn’t be allowed to do - even if the majority of people in the society being governed want to have it done. So libertarians are essentially saying that their individual beliefs of what a government should do outweighs what the majority believes. It comes down to “I’m right even if everyone else disagrees with me” and that’s pure arrogance. > [@adaher](#): > > What you’ve just described is the Constitution. The Constitution prohibits the government from doing a lot of things despite what the majority wants. And unfortunately, there have been end runs made around the Constitution, to the point where the federal government has become EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers were trying to prevent. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-arrogant-political-philosophy-of-all/776706.md?page=7)