A Critique of Libertarianism

 

First thing’s first: society oppresses everyone. There are social rules and expectations which can result in praise or shaming for all people, regardless of race or gender. Economic inequality and government influence are systems that work against everyone to varying degrees, but they are things one simply cannot change. This present day isn’t optimal for you, whether you’re white, black, male, female, or the hybrids in between. This is just reality, because reality itself is oppressive.

 

But most of us don’t know why this is so, and so we search for reasons. If you’re a woman, you find the answer to your oppression in Patriarchy. If you are black, you find it in your Afro-American history and the legacy of racism. If you’re gay, your oppression is from heteronormativity and homophobia.

 

But what if you’re male, and white, and straight?

 

There is an ideology that explains your oppression, and it is no different, practically speaking, than the gender/heritage studies. It is Libertarianism. For the white man, there is no better justification for one’s oppression than economics and the state.

 

For the longest time, I saw Libertarianism as the polar opposite to the left’s oppression studies, but after reviewing my own Libertarian positions, I now see that the ideology is opposite to left ideologies in the sense that mirrors offer a copy in reverse.

 

Both Libertarian and its liberal counterparts have their own oppression narrative – only different sources of that oppression. For Liberals, it’s economic inequality wrought by the rich; for Libertarians, it’s economic inequality wrought by the state. Liberals see a right-wing state holding back progress while Libertarians see the exact reverse. Both focus on different forms of Liberty – Liberal positive liberty vs Libertarian negative liberty. Libertarians and Liberals fight endlessly as to whose “rights” trump the others, but it’s always an argument on rights, never mind that rights themselves are simply fictions. Libertarians and Liberals both have egalitarian views, though expressed slightly differently. Liberals declare that everyone is equal, while Libertarians hold the view that people are individuals and have equal rights and should get equal liberty – so, essentially, equality. Libertarians don’t judge people’s actions because they value liberty so highly while Liberals don’t judge people’s actions because they value tolerance so highly. Libertarians and Liberals are both content with overturning advantageous social traditions and taboos in favor of expanding individual autonomy. And finally, Libertarianism, like the Liberal counterparts, is complete with its own University departments and activist groups.

 

The irony is that Libertarians think they are the exception to the Liberal narrative, just as I thought it was when I was a Libertarian. Looking back, it doesn’t surprise me that my personal journey from Liberal to Libertarian was a quick bait and switch, for so many aspects of what made me a Liberal also, in the end, made me a Libertarian.

 

That is not to say that Libertarianism is completely 100% wrong, or that I have something personal against the ideology. It is useful to a degree. For example, weighing down the virtuous and good with state regulation, which is meant to control the chaotic and immoral, is surly an overreach into tyranny, tyranny that Libertarians valiantly oppose. In that respect, the ideology is beneficial, but at the same time Libertarianism has its problems.

 

Libertarians hold economic matters as an extension of personal liberty, and in holding that liberty as the highest ideal they tend to overlook other, sometimes more powerful systems that control a people. For example, the Libertarian will be against government intrusion of free speech, but the Libertarian ideology is powerless against political correctness in the market. On principal, the Libertarian is fine with censorship, firing of political dissidents, and media ideological control just so long as it occurs without direct coercion. Their response would be something to the effect of: “well, if you don’t like political correctness, just watch another channel. Let the market decide. If people want to pay for political correctness, then they have every right to do so. If your employer doesn’t like your views, then they have every right to fire you just as long as it’s not a breach of an employment contract.”

 

And I would bet that a Liberal would say the same thing.

 

By focusing so much on economic matters, Libertarians miss the social and media influences which can create tyranny and despotism without having to appeal to the government. The tyranny that is found in a free and politically correct Libertopia would likely be worse than anything the state could do in suppressing one’s speech. It’s not as if the government could fire you for being a racist, but you could lose your job and empire if the media thought you were. As a white man’s social justice movement, and as a minority in the face of other, more powerful social justice movements, Libertarians would likely be crushed as the PC police use the media and markets against them. No bureaucrat would need to lift a pen. Since the Libertarian is trapped defending the means of their own destruction, they would have no defense against such an exercise of mass personal liberty.

 

Another thing I find wrong about Libertarianism is that in holding such a high esteem of personal liberty, they tend to devalue personal judgment, for if someone wishes to destroy themselves on drugs, then they have the “right” to do so. This view of liberty holds both virtue and vice in equal weight, since both are exercises of personal autonomy. There is no judgment regarding what people should do, only that they should be allowed to do whatever doesn’t directly hurt someone else. However without higher virtues, philosophies, disciplines, etc. there is no reason to deny yourself the self-destructive pleasures of this world, pleasures which, in on a free market, would be plentiful and cheap.

 

What Libertarianism lacks is a value that surpasses liberty. Strength, honor, loyalty – these are aspects that transcend far beyond the basic ability to choose. Indeed, choice is needed in higher virtues, but choice itself is such a lessor ideal. Ironically, Libertarian ideology is stuck at the bottom of human action, supporting the diversity of behaviors but not the value of those behaviors.

 

And ultimately, Libertarianism tries to spread a diversity of behaviors to people who should not get them. Extending liberty means that not only will people have the option to improve, but the option to self-destruct. Many, if not most, lack the intellect to differentiate between the two. Allowing people free reign assumes they can handle it when most cannot. This is no different than allowing a small child the liberty of using the stove when they are unprepared to do so. The moral thing is not to give liberty to those who would crash and burn, then walk away when they inevitably do so, but to give it to people who need to ascend higher and are currently held back by the system. Libertarianism, however, does not differentiate between the two.

 

So what’s the endgame of Libertarianism? Libertarian economic policy is about allowing market efficiency to replace inefficient, centralized bureaucracy. I think that’s great actually, but where is all the excess wealth going to go? Well, it’ll return to the economy. But when the people have no higher virtues or values because Libertarians ignore such notions and Liberals destroy them, what goal does the economy have? Without higher values, hedonism is the default. So all the economic surplus gained from Libertarian economic policy will simply grow the tumors of an economy that are geared toward supplying hedonistic demands of pleasure and entertainment. How then is that not replacing government economic waste with private economic waste? There needs to be something more here, not just a restructuring, but also a rechanneling. Libertarianism stops half way.

 

In the end, I have to ask myself, who benefits from Libertarianism? It’s not the people at the bottom who would exercise their new liberty by making self-destructive choices. It’s not the government and its employees who would see a drastic (and much needed) trimming of fat. Clearly, the beneficiaries of Libertarian economic policy are the merchants who dole out simplistic pleasures. Ah, there’s the rub.

 

I realize that I’ve been a little harsh on Libertarianism, but that’s because those who are dejected from an ideology are also the ones who hold it in lowest regard. And that’s not to say I don’t like some aspects of Libertarianism, it’s just that its worldview is incomplete. The ideology needs something more, some greater value which recognizes liberty as a means to an end rather than just an end. Freedom, the opportunity to ascend, is only the first step in one’s personal evolution.

 

Update: Curt Doolittle has written his own critique of my critique.

8 thoughts on “A Critique of Libertarianism

  1. Sorry but when it comes to libertarianism you are just wrong about everything.

    “First thing’s first: society oppresses everyone. There are social rules and expectations which can result in praise or shaming for all people, regardless of race or gender. Economic inequality and government influence are systems that work against everyone to varying degrees, but they are things one simply cannot change. This present day isn’t optimal for you, whether you’re white, black, male, female, or the hybrids in between. This is just reality, because reality itself is oppressive”

    If by “oppression” you mean placing demands upon people or inconveniencing people then yes it is technically true that reality is oppressive. However, the fact regulations on personal behavior exist is not a justification for any specific regulation and it certainly doesn’t stop the Left from influencing the powers at be in their favor.

    “But what if you’re male, and white, and straight?
    There is an ideology that explains your oppression, and it is no different, practically speaking, than the gender/heritage studies. It is Libertarianism. For the white man, there is no better justification for one’s oppression than economics and the state.”

    So what? Are we supposed to NOT ever have an oppression narrative? How the hell do you think the justice system works? The victim presents an oppression narrative and the police are supposed to do something about it. Is that supposed to be apriori wrong?

    “Liberals see a right-wing state holding back progress while Libertarians see the exact reverse. Both focus on different forms of Liberty – Liberal positive liberty vs Libertarian negative liberty. Libertarians and Liberals fight endlessly as to whose “rights” trump the others”

    There is no such thing as “positive” and “negative” liberty. There is only one form of liberty: the absence of aggression. What is aggression you ask? It is any violence that has nothing to do with preventing violence. Violence that prevents violence (such as preemptive strike and retaliation) is not aggression.

    “but it’s always an argument on rights, never mind that rights themselves are simply fictions.”

    Translation: all rights are arbitrary. Morality is nonsense. Funny how you want to talk about how absurd leftism and libertarianism when you don’t even believe in objective morality in the first place! That is a complete contradiction.

    “Libertarians and Liberals both have egalitarian views, though expressed slightly differently. Liberals declare that everyone is equal, while Libertarians hold the view that people are individuals and have equal rights and should get equal liberty – so, essentially, equality.”

    Nonsense. Liberals believe in equality. Libertarians believe in non-aggression. You can be a Darwinist who thinks equality is complete nonsense and still be a libertarian.

    “Libertarians don’t judge people’s actions because they value liberty so highly while Liberals don’t judge people’s actions because they value tolerance so highly.”

    Ah I see. You are confusing nihilism with libertarianism. Libertarians believe aggression should be violently opposed and evils that are not violent should be dealt with by means other than violence. Saying that libertarians do not judge people’s actions at all is utter nonsense.

    “Libertarians and Liberals are both content with overturning advantageous social traditions and taboos in favor of expanding individual autonomy. And finally, Libertarianism, like the Liberal counterparts, is complete with its own University departments and activist groups.”

    What does it even mean for a social tradition to be “advantageous”? Advantageous to who? And why does that matter? You don’t judge a social tradition by its utility to a person or group. You judge it by whether objective morality sanctions it.
    It is true that both liberals and libertarians want to expand their personal autonomy. The difference is one form of personal autonomy requires acts of aggression and the other form does not.
    It is true that libertarianism does have some corrupt members that take advantage of the University system, but those are not real libertarians. A real libertarian is someone who acts consistent with the Non-Aggression principle and taking advantage of tenure is an act of aggression (it’s a state privilege).

    “The irony is that Libertarians think they are the exception to the Liberal narrative, just as I thought it was when I was a Libertarian”

    Being inside or outside the “liberal narrative” has nothing to do with the morality of anything. The morality of libertarianism is 100% related to whether its claims correspond to reality. Being leftist or similar to leftism has nothing to do with the question of truth.

    “Libertarians hold economic matters as an extension of personal liberty, and in holding that liberty as the highest ideal they tend to overlook other, sometimes more powerful systems that control a people.”

    It is not true that libertarians hold liberty as the highest ideal. Yes, holding liberty as value (being against aggression) is necessary to be a libertarian, but that doesn’t prove that liberty is the most important value to a libertarian. Libertarians believe in the truth first and then make a series of deductions and inductions that lead them to conclude that the Non-Aggression principle is a valid principle of governance. So really it is the TRUTH or rationality that is their highest value. Not liberty.

    “For example, the Libertarian will be against government intrusion of free speech, but the Libertarian ideology is powerless against political correctness in the market.”

    Saying that we are “powerless” against political correctness in the market is quite hysterical. We have plenty of weapons to use against political correctness. We have rationality. We have common sense. We have the power of the wallet and purse. We have religious tradition. We have knowledge of the esoteric history of cultural Marxism. You have to be quite insane to think that a libertarian has nothing as his/her disposal to deal with political correctness in the market.

    “On principal, the Libertarian is fine with censorship, firing of political dissidents, and media ideological control just so long as it occurs without direct coercion. Their response would be something to the effect of: “well, if you don’t like political correctness, just watch another channel. Let the market decide. If people want to pay for political correctness, then they have every right to do so. If your employer doesn’t like your views, then they have every right to fire you just as long as it’s not a breach of an employment contract. And I would bet that a Liberal would say the same thing.”

    Except that it is only liberals that want to make “hate speech” a crime.

    “By focusing so much on economic matters, Libertarians miss the social and media influences which can create tyranny and despotism without having to appeal to the government. The tyranny that is found in a free and politically correct Libertopia would likely be worse than anything the state could do in suppressing one’s speech”

    What is “tyranny” and “despotism” exactly? A society that has rules =/= tyranny. It’s only aggression that is tyranny.
    And there is no such thing as a “political correct” “libertopia”. The whole point of political correctness (cultural Marxism) is to crush barriers to Marxism which is a statist ideology. The whole point is to get rid of Libertopia!!!
    But let’s assume this politically correct libertopia actually could exist. What are you going to do? Use aggression to force people to abandon their politically correct values? Are you going to force all these politically correct people to associate with people they don’t like? I thought that was precisely what the right hated about the left?!!! Funny how you talk about how similar leftism and libertarianism is when you actually agree that people should be forced to associate with each other just like the leftists.
    Let’s make this even simpler. If you think a bunch of private property owners associating with whoever they wish and dissociating from whoever they wish = tyranny then you must believe that love making is worse than rape. That voluntary interaction is worse than involuntary interaction. That’s nonsense to anyone with common sense.

    “Another thing I find wrong about Libertarianism is that in holding such a high esteem of personal liberty, they tend to devalue personal judgment, for if someone wishes to destroy themselves on drugs, then they have the “right” to do so.”

    The libertarian argument isn’t that using drugs is good. It is that criminalizing drugs is morally wrong! Using a drug by itself is not an act of violence so it makes no sense to use violence in order to curb it.
    Libertarians believes there is virtues and vices. Vices that are violent should be violently opposed. Vices that are not violent should not be violently opposed.
    And this only scratches the surface of why libertarians are against the criminalizing of drugs. Another reason why they are against the criminalizing of drugs is because it is anti-economic. A drug user can still potentially serve the economy. A drug user in prison however cannot serve the economy.
    Another reason why a libertarian might be against drug usage has to do with legal precedent. If you criminalize drug usage or possession then you are setting up a legal precedent for victimless crimes which can allow for greater despotism in the future. If the government can criminalize things that have no victims then they can practically regulate and diminish anything including things that are beneficial to society.
    Another reason why a libertarian might be against the criminalization of drugs is because it makes it harder to solve race relations. If you have large percentages of a race going into prison for a non-offence that is going to make it way harder for that race to climb the social ladder and it will cause a disruption in family life. Does a right winger not have a concern for preserving the integrity of the family unit?

    “This view of liberty holds both virtue and vice in equal weight, since both are exercises of personal autonomy.”

    Nonsense. You’re confusing nihilism with libertarianism.

    “There is no judgment regarding what people should do, only that they should be allowed to do whatever doesn’t directly hurt someone else. However without higher virtues, philosophies, disciplines, etc. there is no reason to deny yourself the self-destructive pleasures of this world, pleasures which, in on a free market, would be plentiful and cheap.”

    Nonsense. Just because you are against rape doesn’t mean you are against love making. Libertarians do have higher virtues. You simply are not aware of them. You also don’t seem to be able to separate political theory from moral theory. Just because someone is morally wrong doesn’t mean you have to criminalize it. It’s an eye for an eye. Violence against violence and virtue against vice. You don’t use violence against things that are non-violent.

    “But when the people have no higher virtues or values because Libertarians ignore such notions and Liberals destroy them, what goal does the economy have? Without higher values, hedonism is the default”

    Hedonism is caused by irrationality. Not libertarianism. Saying that libertarians have no higher values that surpass liberty is a colossal misunderstanding of libertarianism.

    “So all the economic surplus gained from Libertarian economic policy will simply grow the tumors of an economy that are geared toward supplying hedonistic demands of pleasure and entertainment. How then is that not replacing government economic waste with private economic waste? There needs to be something more here, not just a restructuring, but also a rechanneling. Libertarianism stops half way.”

    Better to have private economic waste to government waste. The government is aggression. The private sector is not aggression. Again, if you think there is no moral difference between the two you must think there is no moral difference between rape and love making.
    It also is not true that libertarianism leads to hedonism. Hedonism is an irrational position. There is no logical reason to believe that life is about pursuing your personal pleasure. You need government schools if you want to crush children’s rationality on a massive scale.

    “In the end, I have to ask myself, who benefits from Libertarianism? It’s not the people at the bottom who would exercise their new liberty by making self-destructive choices. It’s not the government and its employees who would see a drastic (and much needed) trimming of fat. Clearly, the beneficiaries of Libertarian economic policy are the merchants who dole out simplistic pleasures. Ah, there’s the rub.”

    You don’t judge a political theory by who benefits from it. You judge it by whether objective morality sanctions it. Judging a moral theory by who benefits from it IS WHAT LEFTISTS DO!

    So let’s recap all you errors.

    1) You argue that libertarianism is similar to leftism when that would have ZERO moral significance even if it were true.
    2) You think every moral issue is a political issue. That every vice has to be meant with violence.
    3) You confuse nihilism with libertarianism.
    4) You don’t actually have a standard of virtue by which to judge the morality of libertarianism anyway yet you go on and on as though you do. “rights themselves are simply fictions”-Your words

    • “Sorry but when it comes to libertarianism you are just wrong about everything.”

      Look, man, let’s leave the melodrama aside. I am not “wrong about everything” simply because I disagree with you. I was once a libertarian. I was once an Anarcho-Capitalist, a Voluntaryist even. If you could look back at my youtube history you’d see comments no different than yours above. It’s not the case here that I’m uninformed, but rather than I was convinced out of libertarianism.

      Now, you being up a lot of points. I can’t possibly go back and quote them all. But here’s what I can say after reading your response:

      1: There is no objective morality anywhere in existence that says initiating violence, harm, and aggression is wrong. You can *say* that’s the case, but saying it doesn’t make it so. You can point to Molyneux’s “gotcha” arguments, or Hans Herman Hoppe’s similar shtick, I’m aware of them, but they’re not “objective”. Even if they were “objective”, objective isn’t the same thing as “real”. I can hypothetically create an objective and completely air-tight argument about how we should abolish the state. Just because my argument is bulletproof doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. Similarly, “rights” don’t stop anyone from causing anyone else harm, or prevent them from getting away with it, as if they were some magical spell or psychic force field. People will break other people’s rights and not give a shit. I’m sure you can point to countless examples of the state initiating violence. Well, they’re still doing it, and they will continue to do so because your claim of objective morality needs to be accepted by the majority of the populace before it is instituted as an accepted moral code, and if that’s the case then it’s not truly objective, is it? It’s actually subjective social consensus that gives your views power, whether they’re “objective” or not. As much as I hate to say it, the moral relativist is absolutely right on this point. If right’s aren’t respected by the majority of people around you, then for all practical purposes you don’t have them.

      2: The left and Libertariansm are indeed close enough in ideology to put themselves together. There is a reason why the original “Libertarians” sat on the left side of the french parliament. There’s a reason they were called Liberals, then Classical Liberals. Both Liberals and Libertarians want to maximize individual utility (note I did not say liberty). They both want to make things best for the individual. True, they go about it different ways, but their goals are pretty much the same and likewise they are more similar than different when you compare them to other moral codes throughout history. And yes, positive and negative liberty are actual things: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXOEkj6Jz44

      3: Libertarianism, like Leftism, is corrosive to society. All those traditions and social restrictions that society placed on people exist (or existed) for a reason. They conveyed upon their society a comparative advantage to societies that did not, and if you’re living in the west, with all this liberty and capitalism (however pure or not they are), then you are the benefactor of traditional imposition onto the individual’s rights. They are like the glue that keeps society together and lesson the frequency and impact of negative externalities caused by destructive social behavior. As big a pothead as I am, and as much for legalization as I am, there are substances in this world that are both attractive and destructive. We could potentially create a drug that is so enticing as to make it more addictive than any natural substance the human animal could ever find in nature. Taking such a drug would be well within your “rights”, according to libertarianism, but it would also greatly harm the individual and create negative externalities for their family, their friends, and by extension the rest of society. It is beneficial, in the traditionalist’s view, to restrict those substances or behavior, and ignore a person’s “rights” in order to keep social cohesion. The libertarian and leftist both want to remove that restriction and let causality take its course simply because they created an excuse, a “right”, which says it’s permissible for them to do it. Now that might not make a difference with one particular drug, but when you try to remove ALL of those restrictions then you’re going to allow for many more negative externalities. Essentially, people are not perfect, and sometimes they need to be told what to do.

  2. “There is no objective morality anywhere in existence that says initiating violence, harm, and aggression is wrong. You can *say* that’s the case, but saying it doesn’t make it so. You can point to Molyneux’s “gotcha” arguments, or Hans Herman Hoppe’s similar shtick, I’m aware of them, but they’re not “objective”.”

    Oh really? Well let me prove it to you without invoking Molyneux or Hoppe since neither of those men could convince you.

    1)Thou shall pursue virtue

    2)Truth is the prime virtue.

    3)Therefore, you should pursue the truth.

    4)That which directly or indirectly serves the pursuit of truth is good.

    5)Living with rational beings (those that act consistent with truth being the prime virtue) and pro-rational beings (those that serve rational beings) is good.

    6)Policies that aid interaction between rational and pro-rational beings are good.

    7)There are no conflicts of interest between rational and pro-rational beings unless there exists stupidity and conflicting moral rules.

    8)Therefore, universal morality is morally superior to relative morality. Universal morality is morality which
    a)Does not force anyone into the status of evil.
    b)Applies to everyone everywhere equally at all times
    c)Allows everyone to act morally.
    d)Does not create arbitrary categories of human beings
    e)Does not create conflicts of interest

    9)The Non-Aggression Principle is the only principle of governance that meets the criterion for universality.

    “Even if they were “objective”, objective isn’t the same thing as “real”. I can hypothetically create an objective and completely air-tight argument about how we should abolish the state. Just because my argument is bulletproof doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.”

    So what? You don’t judge a moral theory by whether people choose to adhere to it and enforce it. You judge it by whether it is axiomatic.

    “Similarly, “rights” don’t stop anyone from causing anyone else harm, or prevent them from getting away with it, as if they were some magical spell or psychic force field. People will break other people’s rights and not give a shit. I’m sure you can point to countless examples of the state initiating violence.”

    So what? The existence of evil does not disprove the existence of good.

    “ell, they’re still doing it, and they will continue to do so because your claim of objective morality needs to be accepted by the majority of the populace before it is instituted as an accepted moral code, and if that’s the case then it’s not truly objective, is it?”

    Nonsense. Whether people agree with it has nothing to do with its validity. Most people are skeptical of evolution.. Does that mean evolution is false? No of course not.

    “It’s actually subjective social consensus that gives your views power, whether they’re “objective” or not. As much as I hate to say it, the moral relativist is absolutely right on this point. If right’s aren’t respected by the majority of people around you, then for all practical purposes you don’t have them.”

    Nonsense. There are objective virtues and vices regardless of whether people think they exist. Power should be of zero concern to you Dave since death is going to take all of it away from you in the end. Only death is real! Life is not about power. It’s about doing what you should do rather than what you want to do. I don’t give a damn that there 10,000 orcs outside Helm’s Deep. We are going to defeat every last of them or die.. That is the right thing to do.

    “The left and Libertariansm are indeed close enough in ideology to put themselves together. There is a reason why the original “Libertarians” sat on the left side of the french parliament. There’s a reason they were called Liberals, then Classical Liberals. Both Liberals and Libertarians want to maximize individual utility (note I did not say liberty). ”

    So what? Even if this were historically true it has no moral significance. And a true libertarian is interested in doing the right thing. Not pursuing personal utility. A true libertarian has more in common with Immanuel Kant than Ayn Rand.

    “They both want to make things best for the individual. True, they go about it different ways, but their goals are pretty much the same and likewise they are more similar than different when you compare them to other moral codes throughout history. And yes, positive and negative liberty are actual things:”

    Only in your delusional fantasy universe. Libertarians want to stop aggression. Liberals want to increase aggression. There is no moral equivalence. The words “negative liberty” and “positive liberty” exist to confuse people. The real difference is between non-aggression and aggression. Love making and rape. If you think there is no moral difference between rape and love making then you are beyond redemption.

    ” Libertarianism, like Leftism, is corrosive to society.”

    Nonsense. Society is voluntary interaction. Aggression is the opposite of society.

    “All those traditions and social restrictions that society placed on people exist (or existed) for a reason. ”

    First of all, libertarians are not against traditions and social restrictions apriori. So right off the back your confusing nihilism with libertarianism.
    Second, saying that all traditions and social restrictions exist for a reason is a completely insane statement. Different countries have difference traditions and social restrictions. You can’t possibly consider all of them to be correct unless your some kind of nihilist/moral relativist or something.

    .”They conveyed upon their society a comparative advantage to societies that did not, and if you’re living in the west, with all this liberty and capitalism (however pure or not they are), then you are the benefactor of traditional imposition onto the individual’s rights.”

    Now you’re just speaking gibberish.
    One, what traditions and social restrictions exactly are libertarians against that you think are moral and just?
    Second, what imposition on individual’s rights are you talking about exactly?

    “They are like the glue that keeps society together and lesson the frequency and impact of negative externalities caused by destructive social behavior”

    Again, you’re confusing nihilism with libetarianism. Libertarians do believe there is such a thing as vices and virtues both violent and non-violent. The point is you don’t deal with non-violent behaviors with violence. You only use violence against violent behaviors. If your wife verbally abuses you somehow you don’t get to smack her across the face. You deal with it in a non-violent manner.

    “As big a pothead as I am, and as much for legalization as I am, there are substances in this world that are both attractive and destructive. We could potentially create a drug that is so enticing as to make it more addictive than any natural substance the human animal could ever find in nature. Taking such a drug would be well within your “rights”, according to libertarianism, but it would also greatly harm the individual and create negative externalities for their family, their friends, and by extension the rest of society.”

    And that would be bad compared to what exactly? Even if you have a drug user that is not exactly living up to his potential he can still potentially serve the economy. As soon as you put him in prison, he is not just a damaged individual. Now you’re making him an an outright parasite on society. And what about the negative externalities cause by imprisonment? What about those. You got anything to say about those? Are we supposed to believe that a drug user is more corrosive to society than a police officer who kidnaps people and forces the taxpayer to pay for all that crap? What rubbish.

    “It is beneficial, in the traditionalist’s view, to restrict those substances or behavior, and ignore a person’s “rights” in order to keep social cohesion.”

    Nonsense. Drugs are a great source for encouraging social interaction. Why do you think people go out drinking? You don’t really know a man till he is drunk as we Texans like to say.
    Just because social cohesion is a virtue doesn’t mean you have to use violence in order to encourage it. Just because love making is good doesn’t mean you should force people to have sex with each other.

    “The libertarian and leftist both want to remove that restriction and let causality take its course simply because they created an excuse, a “right”, which says it’s permissible for them to do it. Now that might not make a difference with one particular drug, but when you try to remove ALL of those restrictions then you’re going to allow for many more negative externalities. Essentially, people are not perfect, and sometimes they need to be told what to do.”

    Not marrying has negative externalities so let’s just force everyone to get married! Good logic bro!

    • “Oh really? Well let me prove it to you without invoking Molyneux or Hoppe since neither of those men could convince you.

      1)Thou shall pursue virtue”

      That’s your first problem. Are you familiar with Hume’s Fork or the is/ought problem? Your argument could do without premise 1 and still get the effect you’re aiming for, but the body runs into said problem. “P2: Truth IS a prime virtue. P3: Therefore you SHOULD proceed truth”. Is =\= should.

      In my personal experience, living with rational beings isn’t always good and living with irrational beings isn’t always bad, depending on how you define rational and irrational. And I don’t believe that universal morality is always preferable or superior to relative morality, at least not all the time.

      Your argument doesn’t do much for me.

      “So what? You don’t judge a moral theory by whether people choose to adhere to it and enforce it. You judge it by whether it is axiomatic.”

      Here’s the thing. You may judge it that way, and even I may judge it that way, but what if you’re living with the orcs you spoke of? What if they don’t? If you live in a tribe that had no concept whatsoever of Property Rights, and you claimed your hut belonged to you, and the rest of the tribe did not agree, then effectively you do not own the hut. It doesn’t matter how much labor you mixed into it to make it yours, and it doesn’t matter if you’ve proven it objectively, if the rest of the tribe does not agree then they’ll just take it anyways. Your claim, your morality, and all it’s justification, is moot in the face of a society that doesn’t accept them. You currently live in such a society, which basically proves my point.

      So what power does objective, universal morality have when it can be turned over by the group?

      You said that life is not about power, that death is real, that there are objective virtues and vices whether or not people believe in them, but where the rubber meets the road it’s the group’s belief that determines whether something is right and wrong. You can disagree with that. It certainly isn’t a nice thing to think about, but that is the reality.

      “Second, saying that all traditions and social restrictions exist for a reason is a completely insane statement. Different countries have difference traditions and social restrictions. You can’t possibly consider all of them to be correct unless your some kind of nihilist/moral relativist or something.”

      Correct. I am a moral relativist to an extent. I was once a nihilist and still hold many of those views. You’ve fallen into the trap that morality needs to be “correct”. It doesn’t. Morality just needs to be functional, and to contribute to the survival of that particular culture.

      There is an old fable in Buddhism in which a rich man encloses his children in a vast estate of abundance and pleasures. They grow up without knowing pain or hunger, or ever even seeing the outside world. The rich man comes home one day to find his house on fire, with his children inside. He yells at them to leave because they will die otherwise. The children don’t know what fire is, or what pain is, or what death is, so his claims, being factually correct, end up doing nothing to save them. Then the rich man gets an idea, and yells out that he has gifts for them if they come outside. Upon hearing this, the children do run outside, thereby saving their lives. It was a lie, not the truth that ultimately saved them.

      Survival, not correctness, is my personal axiom because if nothing survives then it doesn’t matter diddly squat if it’s objectively correct. That means, at least to me, violence is justified if it contributes to the survival of the group. “Incorrect” morality that works is preferable to “correct” morality that doesn’t.

      “Second, saying that all traditions and social restrictions exist for a reason is a completely insane statement.”

      It’s about as insane as saying an animal’s physical attributes exist for a reason. Which is to say it’s not all that insane. Traditions are not arbitrary. We don’t know why the come about, but they didn’t come from nothing. If they were created, and those traditions survive to this day, then like an animal’s evolutionary mutations, we can say that they either helped the society/organism survive, or at the very least they didn’t harm it. That’s because a tradition, a social idea, can cause a society to collapse, and thus be lost to history. This means that cultural traditions that have existed for hundreds, if not thousands of years have done something to keep the group from dying off.

      Sometimes these traditions involve imposing on individual human rights, even violently. If you want an example: every culture that has gone beyond the stone age has, in one form or another, put restrictions on women’s sexuality, basically imposing on their “human rights” to have non-violent consensual sex with the people that they choose. They did this for a variety of reasons, the big one being that paternity was unable to be proven by genetic testing. Paternity is important for the establishment of families, and thus the establishment of society. If you, as a man (I’m going to assume you are), are going to contribute to your family by going to work for an employer (and thereby benefiting society a second time), then you want to trust that said children are yours. If you do not have that trust, then you don’t have a reason to work to support them.

      To enforce this trust, some societies shunned women who were promiscuous. Some societies outright killed them. And many times this violence did not come from the State, but from the church, or the villagers, or even just the family. It wasn’t always the State’s fault.

      Despite the fact that these measures are obviously infringing on a person’s individual rights, the net effect of such policies was beneficial to society as a whole, at least at that time. Today, we have genetic testing, so the moral application has lost its justification. Nevertheless, there is an example where disregarding human rights was actually beneficial to the survival of the species. Whether it is correct or not makes little difference.

      “Even if you have a drug user that is not exactly living up to his potential he can still potentially serve the economy.”

      Potentially? Yes. In actuality? No.

      There are some drugs that are good, and should be legal. There are some drugs that are less bad, but should still be legal. However, there are some drugs that can be created which capitalize on our dopamine response to such a degree that they become absolutely addictive. There are some drugs out there that melt your skin, some that are created with excess environmental waste. There are some substances that the benefit of the high is far outweighed by the cost it imposes on the user and everyone else. The libertarian position is to permit those drugs regardless of negative externalities simply because it doesn’t violently hurt anyone else, or break the NAP. Obviously, I don’t agree and think such a position is naive, and ultimately destructive.

      If you have a man with great potential and ability then it is important that he survives. I therefore have moral justification to see that he survives to use that potential, even if it means restricting a pleasurable past-time that might ultimately lead to his demise. Alternatively, sometimes I do not have that justification. It isn’t a case of either or, but of context. I would not touch the man’s hooch. I’d let him toke up. I might even permit LSD and shrooms. But things like krokodil and black tar heroin I would purposefully remove from his life, by force if necessary. That not only applies to drugs, but a great deal of other things.

      You obviously don’t agree, but I think you’ve fallen into the trap of consistency. You desire that your views have universal consistency, because that makes morality easy. Libertarianism is easy when it comes to trivial matters, like what food am I going to eat, what car am I going to drive, but it ultimately stretches and breaks down when it comes to things out of the ordinary.

      Your philosophy of non-aggression is applicable most of the time, the vast majority of the time even, but no philosophy works under all conditions. I think you should allow for some wiggle-room, some exceptions, for certain cases.

  3. “That’s your first problem. Are you familiar with Hume’s Fork or the is/ought problem? Your argument could do without premise 1 and still get the effect you’re aiming for, but the body runs into said problem”

    Two things.

    1)I am 100% familiar with what a naturalistic fallacy is. In fact, when I debate against nihilists I point out when they commit naturalistic fallacies all the time. A valid proof for anything does not involve fallacies.

    Right now you are actually commiting a naturalistic fallacy.

    The Is
    You can get an ought from an is
    The Ought
    Therefore, you ought not believe in this thing called “objective morality”

    That in an of itself is a naturalistic fallacy!!!
    Also, calling something a “fallacy” has no meaning unless one ought to believe things that are not fallacious or lead to contradictions. So by every stretch of the imagination you cannot invoke Hume to disprove objective morality.

    2)It is not true that one can do without premise 1. Saying that you “truth is the prime virtue” is meaningless unless you ought to pursue virtue.

    ““P2: Truth IS a prime virtue. P3: Therefore you SHOULD proceed truth”. Is =\= should.”

    Wrong. “Truth is the prime virtue” is not a claim about reality. It is merely an OUGHT claim that is axiomatic. Hume never said you couldn’t oughts from other oughts.

    You’re argument is also self-contradictory. Saying that I ought not to get an ought from an is is presupposing the virtue of the truth and the duty for me to adhere to the truth. Otherwise you’re argument has no meaning whatsoever. You can’t invoke one’s duty to the truth to debunk a duty to the truth.

    “In my personal experience, living with rational beings isn’t always good and living with irrational beings isn’t always bad, depending on how you define rational and irrational. And I don’t believe that universal morality is always preferable or superior to relative morality, at least not all the time.”

    What is “good”? What is “preferable”? You’re a nihilist. Saying that it isn’t always “good” or “preferable” to live with rational beings is a completely meaningless assertion coming from an nihilist.

    “Your claim, your morality, and all it’s justification, is moot in the face of a society that doesn’t accept them. You currently live in such a society, which basically proves my point.”

    So what? The existence of disagreement does not refute absolutes. People disagree that the earth is actually round (see flat earthers). Does that mean there is no objective reality? No of course not. Your point is a trivial one.

    “You said that life is not about power, that death is real, that there are objective virtues and vices whether or not people believe in them, but where the rubber meets the road it’s the group’s belief that determines whether something is right and wrong. You can disagree with that. It certainly isn’t a nice thing to think about, but that is the reality.”

    Only in your delusional fantasy universe is objective morality determined by the opinion of the group. Why do you think slavery was abolished? I’ll tell you how. It wasn’t because of cowardly nihilists like you bitching and complaining about the herd disagreeing with you.

    “Correct. I am a moral relativist to an extent. I was once a nihilist and still hold many of those views. You’ve fallen into the trap that morality needs to be “correct”. It doesn’t. Morality just needs to be functional, and to contribute to the survival of that particular culture.”

    Saids who? A nihilist saying morality doesn’t “need” to be correct is an absurdity. Only moralists get to use words like “should” or “ought” or “need”.

    Saying that morality “needs” to contribute to the survival of a particular culture is a moral claim. You as a nihilist have NO BUSINESS making moral claims! A moral claim from you has no meaning even if the premise behind it is true (which it isn’t. There is nothing about libertarian objective morality that prevents it from shielding itself from hostile cultures.)

    “Survival, not correctness, is my personal axiom because if nothing survives then it doesn’t matter diddly squat if it’s objectively correct. That means, at least to me, violence is justified if it contributes to the survival of the group. “Incorrect” morality that works is preferable to “correct” morality that doesn’t. ”

    You don’t even know what you’re talking about.
    1) In order to pursue the truth rational beings have to be protected. The value of survival is a logical implication of my moral theory.
    2)You do not know what an “axiom” is. An axiom is not simply any random claim you make. It is a building block fundamental to understanding. It is a logical proposition that is concise, coherent, and impervious to critique. “Survival is the prime virtue” is not an axiom because I do not have to value living unconditionally in order to argue against it. I only have to value life conditionally. So therefore, “Survival is the prime virtue” is not an axiom.
    3)Libertarians are not against violence generally speaking. We are only against aggression which is violence that has nothing to do with preventing violence. Typical strawman argument for libertarian morality.
    4)A nihilist (???) saying something is “preferable” to something else is an absurdity. A performative contradiction. Either you have an objective morality by which to judge what is preferable or not preferable or you’re just a nihilist with a bunch of arbitrary preferences.

    “It’s about as insane as saying an animal’s physical attributes exist for a reason. Which is to say it’s not all that insane. Traditions are not arbitrary. We don’t know why the come about, but they didn’t come from nothing. If they were created, and those traditions survive to this day, then like an animal’s evolutionary mutations, we can say that they either helped the society/organism survive, or at the very least they didn’t harm it. That’s because a tradition, a social idea, can cause a society to collapse, and thus be lost to history. This means that cultural traditions that have existed for hundreds, if not thousands of years have done something to keep the group from dying off.”

    All that proves is that traditions that help survival are good. That doesn’t prove ALL traditions are in theory good.
    Let’s say I have a tradition of wearing a hat on the weekend. Let’s say I survive. Does that mean my tradition of wearing a hat on the weekends was not arbitrary? No, of course not. My tradition of wearing a hat on the weekend may have nothing to do with survival.

    “Sometimes these traditions involve imposing on individual human rights, even violently. If you want an example: every culture that has gone beyond the stone age has, in one form or another, put restrictions on women’s sexuality, basically imposing on their “human rights” to have non-violent consensual sex with the people that they choose. They did this for a variety of reasons, the big one being that paternity was unable to be proven by genetic testing. Paternity is important for the establishment of families, and thus the establishment of society. If you, as a man (I’m going to assume you are), are going to contribute to your family by going to work for an employer (and thereby benefiting society a second time), then you want to trust that said children are yours. If you do not have that trust, then you don’t have a reason to work to support them.”

    Okay, well if some kids ain’t my children then I ain’t gonna support them. Done. Where is the violence in that?
    You still haven’t explained why it is wrong to smack your wife across the face if she verbally abused you. So what if cave man beat their wives for being promiscuous. So what? What am I supposed to conclude from that exactly? It doesn’t answer my question. You’re not outlining any clear moral principle by which to judge violence.

    “To enforce this trust, some societies shunned women who were promiscuous. Some societies outright killed them. And many times this violence did not come from the State, but from the church, or the villagers, or even just the family. It wasn’t always the State’s fault.”

    And in those classical societies life was a WHOLE lot shittier as well. You’re point is what exactly? Modernity is clearly the best time to be living.

    “Despite the fact that these measures are obviously infringing on a person’s individual rights, the net effect of such policies was beneficial to society as a whole, at least at that time. Today, we have genetic testing, so the moral application has lost its justification. Nevertheless, there is an example where disregarding human rights was actually beneficial to the survival of the species. Whether it is correct or not makes little difference.”

    You don’t judge actions by who benefits from it. You judge it by whether morality sanctions it. We are all going to die anyway so this “survival at all costs” is just nonsense. Living virtuously is what matters. Only DEATH is real.

    I fail to see how women being promiscuous and having a bunch of children with men is somehow not conducive to the survival of the species. By that logic, we should be on the verge of extinction right because of how promiscuous women are not compared to in ancient times yet we are not, In fact, those in the atheistkult keep complaining about overpopulation. The opposite of extinction.

    “Potentially? Yes. In actuality? No.”

    Oh really? You’re saying ALL drug users do not contribute to the economy whatsoever? What rubbish.

    “The libertarian position is to permit those drugs regardless of negative externalities simply because it doesn’t violently hurt anyone else, or break the NAP. Obviously, I don’t agree and think such a position is naive, and ultimately destructive.”

    If a drug does not result in vandalism or aggression there is no good reason to use violence to oppose it. You only fight violence with violence.

    Name me a single drug that will cause me to engage in an act of violence or destruction 100% of the time. I doubt you will be able to do that. And even if you did it wouldn’t matter anyway because drugs are an inanimate object. It is only people that are responsible for their actions. It makes no sense to criminalize objects that are not responsible for themselves. That is just bad metaphysics.

    “If you have a man with great potential and ability then it is important that he survives. I therefore have moral justification to see that he survives to use that potential, even if it means restricting a pleasurable past-time that might ultimately lead to his demise.”

    And that means kidnapping him, throwing him in prison, getting him enamored in prison culture, and making the taxpayer pay for all that. The difference isn’t between this man living in not living. It is between the man living a short life and living a longer life as a parasite on society. Let’s say this drug user is going to die tomorrow. It doesn’t matter. The only justification for violence is preventing violence and criminalizing drug use is not in and of itself preventing violence. Quite the contrary. It increases violence. It is violence to force people to pay for a parasite. By criminalizing drug users you turn drug users into even bigger parasites on society. That’s not just an act of aggression against the drug user. It is also an act of aggression on the taxpayer since obviously all this social engineering has to be paid with taxes.

    “You obviously don’t agree, but I think you’ve fallen into the trap of consistency.”

    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
    So you don’t even value logic? Only people who don’t value logic don’t value consistency.

    “You desire that your views have universal consistency, because that makes morality easy.”

    1)My desires are irrelevant.
    2)Maybe a I do desire that my views have universal consistency. Why would that be wrong? A nihilist who in a contradictory manner also values tradition is against universal consistency? HUH? That makes absolutely no sense. That is a complete contradiction in every conceivable way.

    • “1)I am 100% familiar with what a naturalistic fallacy is. In fact, when I debate against nihilists I point out when they commit naturalistic fallacies all the time. A valid proof for anything does not involve fallacies.

      Right now you are actually commiting a naturalistic fallacy.

      The Is
      You can get an ought from an is
      The Ought
      Therefore, you ought not believe in this thing called “objective morality”

      That in an of itself is a naturalistic fallacy!!!”

      The naturalistic fallacy occurs when you say that natural things are preferable simply because they are natural. That’s not the same thing as Hume’s fork. I know you saw it on the Wikipedia page, but I doubt you decided to read the whole of it. As for the rest of what you wrote, I can spot my own fallacies. I can spot moving the goal posts, and demanding unreasonable standards, and taking things out of context, and self-selecting what points you want to discuss and what ones you want to avoid.

      Go back and read what you wrote. If your attempt was to convince me that I am wrong and you are right, then you have absolutely failed at it. Perhaps you should apply a little persuasion to your logical arguments rather than going full-fedora. More than your views, you yourself need an attitude adjustment.

      This isn’t youtube or reddit, and I do not entertain comments like the ones youtube and reddit. I just don’t have the time to deal with that kind shit on my own website. Clean up your rhetoric, stop being such an unsocial twat, or you’ll find yourself out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *