-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathlibertarians-right-left.html
100 lines (98 loc) · 7.58 KB
/
libertarians-right-left.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
<html>
<head>
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1.0">
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/landyacht.css" />
<title>
Why Libertarians Get Along Better with the Right than the Left
</title>
</head>
<body>
<div id="topbar">
<div id="logo" class="topbar-item">
<a href="/" class="logo-link"> rouking's wordhole </a>
</div>
<div class="topbar-item">
<a href="/latest.html"> latest </a>
</div>
<div class="topbar-item">
<a href="/all.html"> all posts </a>
</div>
</div>
<div id="content">
<h1> Why Do Libertarians (tend to) Get Along Better with Right-Wingers? </h1>
<p>
You may have noticed that libertarians and right-wingers tend to be more amicable toward one another than libertarians and left-wingers.
I have an idea of why that might be, but I should clarify what I mean by these terms first.
With "libertarians," I'm referring to followers of American-style libertarianism, classical liberalism, anarcho-capitalism, minarchism, etc.
By right-wing, I roughly mean what's now called the "dissident right," an umbrella term encompassing a rather diverse collection of ideologies considered too radical by mainstream conservatives.
</p>
<p>
It should also be said that I dislike the entire left-right dichotomy.
I'm using the terms left- and right-wing here as convenient symbols for the groups I'm describing, so let the descriptions give them meaning within the context of this article.
Don't worry about whether a given ideology or person is "really right-wing," because the point is not to argue over the boundaries of categories.
</p>
<p>
From the libertarian point of view, politics is a sliding scale from perfect capitalism to total socialism (see Hoppe's <i>A Theory of Socialism & Capitalism</i>).
In this system, left- and right-wingers are simply two brands of socialists, differing only in implementation details, so to speak.
</p>
<p>
So why, then, do libertarians tend to have less bitter disagreements with the right?
Part of the answer is historical, part is conservative politicians' superficially-libertarian propaganda, and yet another part is the particular political situation of today.
However, from a deeper, more theoretical perspective, I think it boils down to the <i>nature</i> of the disagreement.
One of the central tenets of libertarianism, one which almost all libertarians would agree with despite otherwise having serious differences of opinion, is this implication:
<i>if the goal is to maximize the overall wealth of society, then a system of private property and free association is the optimal way to organize ourselves.</i>
</p>
<p>
There are two ways to argue against such an implication: you can reject the relationship, or you can reject the premise.
In other words, when I assert <i>A → B</i>, you can argue against that either by saying "No, <i>A</i> does not imply <i>B</i>" or "The premise (<i>A</i>) is false, so the implication is irrelevant."
The left rejects the relationship, and the dissident right rejects the premise.
</p>
<p>
The left more or less agrees that the goal is maximizing the overall wealth of society.
They might phrase it differently or emphasize different aspects of that goal, but the core disagreement isn't so much about what we want to accomplish as it is <i>how to accomplish it</i>.
I know there are varying views on the left, so I won't try to give a description of their strategy.
The point is, they reject that central proposition of libertarianism in a way that leaves little room for compromise or "agree to disagree."
There is a mutual belief that the implementation of the other group's plan would bring us further from the (shared) goal.
</p>
<p>
The dissident right simply does not care about maximizing for overall wealth.
Some believe that certain classes of people are fundamentally better or more important, and so those classes' welfare trumps the overall welfare.
In other words, it's fine if the total wealth/satisfaction is lower than it could be, as long as the right people are better off than they otherwise would be.
Some want to structure society in accordance with their religion, meaning adherence to their religion's gospel is more important than optimal material wealth.
</p>
<p>
While this theoretically puts right-wingers just as much at odds with libertarians as left-wingers, it leaves room for "agree to disagree."
Someone on the right may, if pressed, concede that a libertarian society would optimize for overall wealth.
And, as a libertarian, others having non-libertarian goals is somewhat less offensive than others rejecting the libertarian way of achieving goals.
</p>
<p>
Further, it is even possible for right-wingers to integrate themselves into the libertarian framework by embracing the non-aggression principle, choosing instead to achieve their socioeconomic goals
through nonaggressive collective action such as ostracizing or chastising those who deviate from their norms.
More progressive libertarians will disagree, but that disagreement can occur inside a libertarian framework.
The progressives can smugly believe the conservatives will run themselves into the ground by rejecting talented business partners through bigotry, and the conservatives can smugly believe the progressives
will run themselves into the ground through wokeness, sinfulness, lack of discipline, or what have you.
One or the other group may be right, or they may each continue to exist in separate geographical regions;
for principled libertarians, any of these outcomes ought to be acceptable because it was reached without violation of the NAP.
</p>
<h3> Tangential Commentary for the Like-Minded </h3>
<p>
What I described in the last paragraph above serves as a potential avenue to "onboard" right-leaning folks, especially those who feel the current government is too far gone and/or disproportionately controlled
by their enemies.
Unfortunately we cannot do much for those still under the illusion that the State could be made into a positive force if they "just got the right person in power."
However, the more the State continues to superficially embrace the progressive agenda with little to no pushback from the supposed opposition, the easier it becomes to shatter that illusion.
</p>
<p>
On the other hand, the very same situation makes it harder to shatter the illusion for progressives:
we have to demonstrate the falsity of the very carefully crafted lie that the State genuinely cares about climate change, social justice, or any number of other issues.
The politicians are experts at pretending to care and at passing blame around when their promises are not upheld.
Worst of all, the system allows some genuine believers to gain a bit of power in a modern, perfected form of controlled-opposition tactics.
The best we can hope for on that front is a repeat of how Bernie Sanders got screwed over happening to someone like Occasio-Cortez.
A not-insignificant portion of people woke up when it happened to Bernie, but mileage may vary for future incidents.
</p>
<p>
To conclude, I want to emphasize again that this theoretical gobbledygook is hardly the whole picture on why certain factions get along better than others, or on how to win converts.
Today's increasingly dire political and economic landscape demands an eye toward pragmatism in everything we do, so go forth and apply anything you've learned here to make the world a bit more liberty-oriented.
</p>
</div>
</body>
</html>