Libertarians as authoritarians?

[lpetrich]

Thread by @DavidNeiwert: "1) Yesterday I ended discussion with an interlocutor who became abusive (life is too short to converse with shitheads) after I told him that […]" starting with " Yesterday I ended discussion with an interlocutor who became abusive (life is too short to converse with shitheads) after I told him that, in my view, libertarians often are some of the worst authoritarians."

Although libertarian authoritarianism seems like a contradiction in terms, he makes a good case for many self-styled libertarians' authoritarianism. He noted many libertarians' adoration of pResident Trump with his authoritarianism, and many alt-righters having started off with libertarianism, and sometimes continuing to be self-proclaimed libertarians.

DN confesses that he was once attracted to libertarianism, but he backed off after finding it incoherent. Like claiming that only governments can coerce anyone. He got very put off when he tried to read Ayn Rand's works. Especially the part of "Atlas Shrugged" where a train stalls in a tunnel and poisons everybody with its exhaust -- complete with listing the sins of those who were poisoned. DN found that very evil. But his fellow libertarians despised him for that, something that he found very cult-like.

More to the point, Rand’s political philosophy is itself profoundly authoritarian. It essentially advocates the supremacy of the will of the powerful individuals who reside atop the economic hierarchy. We little people should happily submit to the rule of the John Galts.

DN then lists three features of authoritarianism:

• Authoritarian Submission: to a Legitimate Leader.
• Authoritarian Aggression: to anyone who does not submit, and also to illegitimate leaders.
• Conventionalism: one's beliefs are the "real mainstream".

He then claims that some features of authoritarian personalities are common in libertarians, like compartmentalization, a high tolerance for bigotry, a taste for conspiracy theories, and especially a firm belief in human inequality and contempt for egalitarianism.

In their mind, an important freedom seems to be the right to bully others and beat others into submission.

It is something like the antebellum South, where the slaveowner plantation oligarchy loved liberty for itself, and not so much for other people, especially their slaves.

 

[untermensche]

There is no one more authoritarian than a capitalist dictator. Some person, or small group of people, at the head of a capitalist entity with a rigid dictatorial power structure. This describes most capitalist entities.

Rand worshiped capitalist dictators.

'Atlas Shrugged' is about the hell these dictators must endure because they don't have total control of everything.

 

[Underseer]

Thread by @DavidNeiwert: "1) Yesterday I ended discussion with an interlocutor who became abusive (life is too short to converse with shitheads) after I told him that […]" starting with " Yesterday I ended discussion with an interlocutor who became abusive (life is too short to converse with shitheads) after I told him that, in my view, libertarians often are some of the worst authoritarians."

Although libertarian authoritarianism seems like a contradiction in terms, he makes a good case for many self-styled libertarians' authoritarianism. He noted many libertarians' adoration of pResident Trump with his authoritarianism, and many alt-righters having started off with libertarianism, and sometimes continuing to be self-proclaimed libertarians.

DN confesses that he was once attracted to libertarianism, but he backed off after finding it incoherent. Like claiming that only governments can coerce anyone. He got very put off when he tried to read Ayn Rand's works. Especially the part of "Atlas Shrugged" where a train stalls in a tunnel and poisons everybody with its exhaust -- complete with listing the sins of those who were poisoned. DN found that very evil. But his fellow libertarians despised him for that, something that he found very cult-like.

More to the point, Rand’s political philosophy is itself profoundly authoritarian. It essentially advocates the supremacy of the will of the powerful individuals who reside atop the economic hierarchy. We little people should happily submit to the rule of the John Galts.

DN then lists three features of authoritarianism:

• Authoritarian Submission: to a Legitimate Leader.
• Authoritarian Aggression: to anyone who does not submit, and also to illegitimate leaders.
• Conventionalism: one's beliefs are the "real mainstream".

He then claims that some features of authoritarian personalities are common in libertarians, like compartmentalization, a high tolerance for bigotry, a taste for conspiracy theories, and especially a firm belief in human inequality and contempt for egalitarianism.

In their mind, an important freedom seems to be the right to bully others and beat others into submission.

It is something like the antebellum South, where the slaveowner plantation oligarchy loved liberty for itself, and not so much for other people, especially their slaves.

No shit, Sherlock.

Libertarians are just conservatives who are for whatever reason afraid of the label, but still want to support racism, fascism, misogyny, authoritarianism, etc. It's a nonsense label for fascists in denial. Conservatism is for people who are more honest about their fascism.

 

[Trausti]

Thread by @DavidNeiwert: "1) Yesterday I ended discussion with an interlocutor who became abusive (life is too short to converse with shitheads) after I told him that […]" starting with " Yesterday I ended discussion with an interlocutor who became abusive (life is too short to converse with shitheads) after I told him that, in my view, libertarians often are some of the worst authoritarians."

Although libertarian authoritarianism seems like a contradiction in terms, he makes a good case for many self-styled libertarians' authoritarianism. He noted many libertarians' adoration of pResident Trump with his authoritarianism, and many alt-righters having started off with libertarianism, and sometimes continuing to be self-proclaimed libertarians.

DN confesses that he was once attracted to libertarianism, but he backed off after finding it incoherent. Like claiming that only governments can coerce anyone. He got very put off when he tried to read Ayn Rand's works. Especially the part of "Atlas Shrugged" where a train stalls in a tunnel and poisons everybody with its exhaust -- complete with listing the sins of those who were poisoned. DN found that very evil. But his fellow libertarians despised him for that, something that he found very cult-like.

More to the point, Rand’s political philosophy is itself profoundly authoritarian. It essentially advocates the supremacy of the will of the powerful individuals who reside atop the economic hierarchy. We little people should happily submit to the rule of the John Galts.

DN then lists three features of authoritarianism:

• Authoritarian Submission: to a Legitimate Leader.
• Authoritarian Aggression: to anyone who does not submit, and also to illegitimate leaders.
• Conventionalism: one's beliefs are the "real mainstream".

He then claims that some features of authoritarian personalities are common in libertarians, like compartmentalization, a high tolerance for bigotry, a taste for conspiracy theories, and especially a firm belief in human inequality and contempt for egalitarianism.

In their mind, an important freedom seems to be the right to bully others and beat others into submission.

It is something like the antebellum South, where the slaveowner plantation oligarchy loved liberty for itself, and not so much for other people, especially their slaves.

No shit, Sherlock.

Libertarians are just conservatives who are for whatever reason afraid of the label, but still want to support racism, fascism, misogyny, authoritarianism, etc. It's a nonsense label for fascists in denial. Conservatism is for people who are more honest about their fascism.

Good grief. What is the current working definition of fascist? Has history been re-written where the Nazis promoted individualism and limitations on state power?

 

[Axulus]

No shit, Sherlock.

Libertarians are just conservatives who are for whatever reason afraid of the label, but still want to support racism, fascism, misogyny, authoritarianism, etc. It's a nonsense label for fascists in denial. Conservatism is for people who are more honest about their fascism.

Good grief. What is the current working definition of fascist? Has history been re-written where the Nazis promoted individualism and limitations on state power?

Fascism is the catch all label given out to anyone on the right or any philosophy that they want to smear. Guilt by Nazi association. A very lazy tactic.

From what I understand, fascism doesn't believe in strong private property rights where government has little power over someone's private property. Fascism philosophy does not hold individual rights to be the highest of values. Facsism also generally requires a strong central government with limited checks and balances on the executive. This is in opposition to most generally accepted libertarian philosophy.

 

[untermensche]

Fascism is when the government is intertwined with big business working in the interest of big business.

If there are insufficient protections fascism can lead to a dictator in government to compliment the dictators of wealth in big business.

Those that support the status quo support a form of fascism.

 

[lpetrich]

Bob Altemeyer has updated his site on The Authoritarians to include Donald Trump and his followers -- "Why Do Trump’s Supporters Stand by Him, No Matter What?" and "Donald Trump and Authoritarian Followers".

In another sense, however, the fidelity of Trump’s base remains astounding. He has made so many unforced errors because of his lack of understanding and low problem-solving intelligence, his vast ignorance, his enormous, never-ending dishonesty which seems as reflexive as his breathing, his explosive hostility, his uncontrollable vanity, his despicable demeaning of women, his squalid vulgarity, the stupidity of his stereotypes, the shabbiness of his thinking, the buffoonery of his parading, his attacks on the institutions he needs most to safeguard the country, his incredibly poor judgment about the character of those whom he has brought into his administration, his equally mind-numbing lack of judgment about foreign leaders, friend and foe, and his willingness to inflame Americans’ disagreements and turn them into conflagrations which make us that deeply divided house which the Gospels and Abraham Lincoln warned against—how can his supporters have stood so solidly behind him? You’d think they’d be having some second thoughts at least.

The main reason, I submit, is that most of Trump’s backers are authoritarian followers—people who submit too much to the leaders they consider legitimate, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do whatever they want.

I've encountered some fanatical Trumpies elsewhere online -- it is remarkable how they totally adore him.

Authoritarian followers often crave validation for their beliefs, so they often like to inhabit ideological echo chambers, and they often fall for people who tell them what they want to hear, even if they are less than honest about that. Not surprisingly, they are often very dogmatically certain about their beliefs.

Then there is the fear factor. Authoritarian followers often seem very fearful, and they often have some brain differences that are consistent with such fearfulness.

Accordingly Donald Trump was well-placed to gain the support of authoritarian followers as he was a large and seemingly fearless, powerful man. All he had to do was say he saw the dangers the followers felt and he would fight to protect them. So he did. He would build a wall over 1000 miles long to keep Mexican rapists out. He would stop immigration from certain countries to keep terrorists from getting in and killing everyone. He promised to protect people who feared their jobs were going overseas to countries that he said were stealing America blind. “I am your voice,” he said. He would fight for them with all of his great might. And that was just what threatened people who felt powerless wanted.

 

[Axulus]

Bob Altemeyer has updated his site on The Authoritarians to include Donald Trump and his followers -- "Why Do Trump’s Supporters Stand by Him, No Matter What?" and "Donald Trump and Authoritarian Followers".

In another sense, however, the fidelity of Trump’s base remains astounding. He has made so many unforced errors because of his lack of understanding and low problem-solving intelligence, his vast ignorance, his enormous, never-ending dishonesty which seems as reflexive as his breathing, his explosive hostility, his uncontrollable vanity, his despicable demeaning of women, his squalid vulgarity, the stupidity of his stereotypes, the shabbiness of his thinking, the buffoonery of his parading, his attacks on the institutions he needs most to safeguard the country, his incredibly poor judgment about the character of those whom he has brought into his administration, his equally mind-numbing lack of judgment about foreign leaders, friend and foe, and his willingness to inflame Americans’ disagreements and turn them into conflagrations which make us that deeply divided house which the Gospels and Abraham Lincoln warned against—how can his supporters have stood so solidly behind him? You’d think they’d be having some second thoughts at least.

The main reason, I submit, is that most of Trump’s backers are authoritarian followers—people who submit too much to the leaders they consider legitimate, trust them too much, and give them too much leeway to do whatever they want.

I've encountered some fanatical Trumpies elsewhere online -- it is remarkable how they totally adore him.

Authoritarian followers often crave validation for their beliefs, so they often like to inhabit ideological echo chambers, and they often fall for people who tell them what they want to hear, even if they are less than honest about that. Not surprisingly, they are often very dogmatically certain about their beliefs.

Then there is the fear factor. Authoritarian followers often seem very fearful, and they often have some brain differences that are consistent with such fearfulness.

Accordingly Donald Trump was well-placed to gain the support of authoritarian followers as he was a large and seemingly fearless, powerful man. All he had to do was say he saw the dangers the followers felt and he would fight to protect them. So he did. He would build a wall over 1000 miles long to keep Mexican rapists out. He would stop immigration from certain countries to keep terrorists from getting in and killing everyone. He promised to protect people who feared their jobs were going overseas to countries that he said were stealing America blind. “I am your voice,” he said. He would fight for them with all of his great might. And that was just what threatened people who felt powerless wanted.

I'll agree that Trump and his supporters are largely authoritarian, but how does this lend support to the idea that libertarians are authoritarian or support authoritarian government?

Here is what some prominent libertarian organizations are saying about Trump:

Trump is the opposite of a Libertarian

https://www.lp.org/trump-opposite-libertarian/

Trump’s economic agenda is little more than an impulsive dislike of trade and immigration, a hazy desire for less regulation, and a desire to lower taxes temporarily but not do the hard work to lower taxes permanently. In other words, MAGAnomics is more a marketing slogan than a serious plan to strengthen the nation’s economy.

https://www.cato.org/publications/c...economic-policies-really-making-america-great

The Trump Administration Is a Sinkhole of Sleaze
Donald Trump has an instinct for finding and empowering scam artists, spongers, and thugs.

https://reason.com/archives/2018/08/09/the-trump-administration-is-a-sinkhole-o

Trump's Road to Socialism

https://mises.org/power-market/trumps-road-socialism

 

[Bomb#20]

Do you find the case for libertarianism so intellectually irrefutable that you find it necessary to make up misrepresentative drivel like that in order to find anything to say against it?

Although libertarian authoritarianism seems like a contradiction in terms, he makes a good case for many self-styled libertarians' authoritarianism.

I take it you think democracy is a system of mass-murder based on the actions of the self-styled German Democratic Republic and the self-styled Democratic Kampuchea? And you think socialism is a form of antisemitism because he who must not be named was a self-styled socialist?

He noted many libertarians' adoration of pResident Trump with his authoritarianism,

Show us a libertarian who adores Trump's authoritarianism. (No doubt you can find a few who adore his non-Hillary-ness, but Hillary's an authoritarian too.)

and many alt-righters having started off with libertarianism,

So I take it you think socialism is fascist, on account of Mussolini having been the friggin' editor of the Italian Socialist Party newspaper?

and sometimes continuing to be self-proclaimed libertarians.

DN confesses that he was once attracted to libertarianism, but he backed off after finding it incoherent. Like claiming that only governments can coerce anyone. He got very put off when he tried to read Ayn Rand's works.

You know what Ayn Rand called libertarians?

He then claims that some features of authoritarian personalities are common in libertarians, like compartmentalization, a high tolerance for bigotry, a taste for conspiracy theories, and especially a firm belief in human inequality and contempt for egalitarianism.

So feeling that nobody should have the authority to punish them for not thinking like DN means they're authoritarian, in DN's mind?

In their mind, an important freedom seems to be the right to bully others and beat others into submission.

By "bully others and beat others into submission", DN is presumably referring to libertarians' insistence that no one should have the authority to stop DN's outgroup from taking their ball and going home? DN feels that if one guy wants to trade but another guy doesn't, it's authoritarian unless some third party has the authority to force the second guy to trade against his will?

It is something like the antebellum South, where the slaveowner plantation oligarchy loved liberty for itself, and not so much for other people, especially their slaves.

This again. Why do you put so much effort into smearing anti-slavery people as pro-slavery? Do you feel guilt-by-association is a substantive criticism when the association is something libertarians' enemies just made up out of whole cloth?

 

[Opoponax]

I'll agree that Trump and his supporters are largely authoritarian, but how does this lend support to the idea that libertarians are authoritarian or support authoritarian government?

From what I've been able to tell, calling oneself "Libertarian" has become somewhat similar to calling oneself "Independent." For many in this crowd, they want to portray themselves as not part of the crowd, and likely honestly think of themselves as not being adequately represented by either party.

A lot of Trump voters call themselves Libertarians even though they don't seem to have the foggiest notion of what the Libertarian party actually represents. The extent of their sophistication on the matter seems to be something along the lines of, "I like capitalism and think gay people are cool." Yet, these people hate liberals, immigrants, and anything not currently associated with Trumpism. IOW, they've hijacked the libertarian name, but for all intents and purposes are Trump Republicans.

As to actual Libertarians, they seem to have an honest and good faith belief that their ideas would bring the greatest good. However, as the relentless creep of corporations has shown,as well as their history of pollution, labor oppression, etc., the nation would become a tyranny of a few large companies with a government too weak to do anything about it.

 

[BH]

I do not believe in Libertarianism because I believe there is a proper time and place to coerce people to do things they otherwise would not do. In fact, I would say it would be immoral to not coerce people in certain circumstances.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No shit, Sherlock.

Libertarians are just conservatives who are for whatever reason afraid of the label, but still want to support racism, fascism, misogyny, authoritarianism, etc. It's a nonsense label for fascists in denial. Conservatism is for people who are more honest about their fascism.

Good grief. What is the current working definition of fascist? Has history been re-written where the Nazis promoted individualism and limitations on state power?

Fascism is the catch all label given out to anyone on the right or any philosophy that they want to smear. Guilt by Nazi association. A very lazy tactic.

From what I understand, fascism doesn't believe in strong private property rights where government has little power over someone's private property. Fascism philosophy does not hold individual rights to be the highest of values. Facsism also generally requires a strong central government with limited checks and balances on the executive. This is in opposition to most generally accepted libertarian philosophy.

I think the fascist label has been tossed in both directions. Anyone remember "death panels"? Heck, that worked so well, the Republicans seized control of most of the United States. Liberals say the word "fascist" and conservatives whine "oppression!".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Bob Altemeyer has updated his site on The Authoritarians to include Donald Trump and his followers -- "Why Do Trump’s Supporters Stand by Him, No Matter What?" and "Donald Trump and Authoritarian Followers".

I've encountered some fanatical Trumpies elsewhere online -- it is remarkable how they totally adore him.

Authoritarian followers often crave validation for their beliefs, so they often like to inhabit ideological echo chambers, and they often fall for people who tell them what they want to hear, even if they are less than honest about that. Not surprisingly, they are often very dogmatically certain about their beliefs.

Then there is the fear factor. Authoritarian followers often seem very fearful, and they often have some brain differences that are consistent with such fearfulness.

I'll agree that Trump and his supporters are largely authoritarian, but how does this lend support to the idea that libertarians are authoritarian or support authoritarian government?

Other than most of his supporters would say they are libertarians?

Here is what some prominent libertarian organizations are saying about Trump:

Trump is the opposite of a Libertarian

https://www.lp.org/trump-opposite-libertarian/

Trump’s economic agenda is little more than an impulsive dislike of trade and immigration, a hazy desire for less regulation, and a desire to lower taxes temporarily but not do the hard work to lower taxes permanently. In other words, MAGAnomics is more a marketing slogan than a serious plan to strengthen the nation’s economy.

https://www.cato.org/publications/c...economic-policies-really-making-america-great

The Trump Administration Is a Sinkhole of Sleaze
Donald Trump has an instinct for finding and empowering scam artists, spongers, and thugs.

https://reason.com/archives/2018/08/09/the-trump-administration-is-a-sinkhole-o

Trump's Road to Socialism

https://mises.org/power-market/trumps-road-socialism

Yeah, about that, I don't see much resistance from the Libertarians, as they are taking the GOP route of "Let's stuff the courts with all those Federal Court openings we refused to fill when Obama was President."

Libertarians might not be authoritarians, but they seem to be looking the other way as it is a means to the desired end, which makes them complicit.

 

[whollygoats]

I'll agree that Trump and his supporters are largely authoritarian, but how does this lend support to the idea that libertarians are authoritarian or support authoritarian government?

From what I've been able to tell, calling oneself "Libertarian" has become somewhat similar to calling oneself "Independent." For many in this crowd, they want to portray themselves as not part of the crowd, and likely honestly think of themselves as not being adequately represented by either party.

A lot of Trump voters call themselves Libertarians even though they don't seem to have the foggiest notion of what the Libertarian party actually represents. The extent of their sophistication on the matter seems to be something along the lines of, "I like capitalism and think gay people are cool." Yet, these people hate liberals, immigrants, and anything not currently associated with Trumpism. IOW, they've hijacked the libertarian name, but for all intents and purposes are Trump Republicans.

As to actual Libertarians, they seem to have an honest and good faith belief that their ideas would bring the greatest good. However, as the relentless creep of corporations has shown,as well as their history of pollution, labor oppression, etc., the nation would become a tyranny of a few large companies with a government too weak to do anything about it.

Agreed.

Those who call themselves Libertarians are not necessarily libertarians. Nor are libertarians necessarily Libertarians. I'm an inactive member of the ACLU; I'm a libertarian in that I support the maximization of civil rights under the United States Constitution and the laws of the various states. I would like to see the tenents of civil liberty and freedom of expression extended worldwide. I am most adamantly NOT a Libertarian. I went to enough Libertarian meetings to realize that they, as a concentration of humans, are no better than the local county Democratic Party Central Committee. Indeed, they are far and away much more whackadoodle and unhinged than the Democrats, which is not an easy feat.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Libertarians are just conservatives who are for whatever reason afraid of the label, but still want to support racism, fascism, misogyny, authoritarianism, etc. It's a nonsense label for fascists in denial. Conservatism is for people who are more honest about their fascism.

I was formerly a libertarian. I supported none of the views you claim libertarians support. Some do. Some don't. Broad-brushed name-calling does little to share information .... but it does a say a lot about the person wielding as a thinking process.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Libertarians are just conservatives who are for whatever reason afraid of the label, but still want to support racism, fascism, misogyny, authoritarianism, etc. It's a nonsense label for fascists in denial. Conservatism is for people who are more honest about their fascism.

I was formerly a libertarian. I supported none of the views you claim libertarians support. Some do. Most don't. Broad-brushed name-calling does little to share information .... but it does a say a lot about the person wielding it as a thinking process.

As to actual Libertarians, they seem to have an honest and good faith belief that their ideas would bring the greatest good. However, as the relentless creep of corporations has shown,as well as their history of pollution, labor oppression, etc., the nation would become a tyranny of a few large companies with a government too weak to do anything about it.

This is exactly why I rethought my positions and realized that libertarianism in its purer forms is absolutely unworkable. The foibles of human nature mean that governmental regulation will always be required on those matters of life and death, in order to assure the greatest good for the most people.

 

[repoman]

Hmmm, laws and lawyers and having a person in a weak position sign a contract dictated by someone in a strong position is the definition of "use of force".

Think of the old days and record contracts, the limited ability and options of artists to put out their music for a "fair" price. Record labels had serious power, including payola schemes. Play ball or get screwed. How does this square with libertarianism? How does one check the power of people in strong positions?

For a current example, what about Amazon and localities and electricity costs?

https://news.slashdot.org/story/18/08/20/1928236/how-amazon-one-of-the-richest-companies-in-the-world-secretly-offloads-its-electricity-costs-to-local-taxpayers-who-live-near-its-data-centers

How Amazon, One of the Richest Companies in the World, Secretly Offloads Its Electricity Costs To Local Taxpayers Who Live Near Its Data Centers

 

[RVonse]

Ive always believed the government should completely stay out of the pro life vs control over individual body debate. That the government should neither pay for abortions nor should it make them illegal. I also believe the federal government should allow prostitution, consumption of drugs/alcohol and stay out of fake foreign wars.

So most people say my ideology libertarian.

Yet I also totally support Trump and his MAGA campaign. Does that mean I am a fascist and a libertarian? Or does it mean someone is calling Trump something he really isnt?

I think a lot of people are listening to fake news and calling Trump something he really isnt.

 

[marc]

Think of the old days and record contracts, the limited ability and options of artists to put out their music for a "fair" price. Record labels had serious power, including payola schemes. Play ball or get screwed. How does this square with libertarianism? How does one check the power of people in strong positions?

It doesn’t, as that would be infringing on the liberties of the strong. It gets the Big Bully (government) to stop harassing the local bully (corporations, local government, etc)

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ive always believed the government should completely stay out of the pro life vs control over individual body debate. That the government should neither pay for abortions nor should it make them illegal. I also believe the federal government should allow prostitution, consumption of drugs/alcohol and stay out of fake foreign wars.

So most people say my ideology libertarian.

Yet I also totally support Trump and his MAGA campaign. Does that mean I am a fascist and a libertarian? Or does it mean someone is calling Trump something he really isnt?

I think a lot of people are listening to fake news and calling Trump something he really isnt.

You realize your support of Trump undermines the views you've just espoused, right?