The Mentality of the 'New Libertarian'

Economics Political Theory
1

So, I’m going to tell you about an observation in my personal life experience with libertarian politics.

We could call them new libertarians, born again libertarians, conservative libertarians, but I think the most apt is simply politician. But, ummm, the pejorative sense of the word “politician.” (The left has noticed something that many here are unwilling to admit and that is, namely, that libertarians, or people who call themselves that, are tricked into supporting NeoConservative goals (I just found that site when looking for a picture, it is coincidence that the caption for the picture, that I found on Google, says what it says, honestly).

327×400 61.7 KB

The kids at the YAL at my University promoted Ron Paul to no end, but they also promoted Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. Now, I don’t want to make people think that those two are excluded from the intellectual side of libertarianism, however, I would like to mention that this YAL treated them as if they are the frontrunning writers and inspirations for the movement.

This kid who ran the meetings and represented our University’s chapter at the regional and national meetings (as I am sure they all do). He made a few comments towards me that pushed me to dislike this kid. First, he was the primary one touting Friedman as ‘our’ economist. Second, is personal (he made a joke about me (where I got my LvMI sweatshirt) when I questioned his motives for not going deeper into libertarianism in front of the group - this sort of made me think that he felt threatened and his instinct is to denigrate then laugh off the threat (AKA his alpha instinct). Third, he mentioned, again after I’d pointed out that what the group was thinking at was shallow, that YAL was not a book club and that perception matters.

Yes, perception does matter. How people perceive the so called “libertarians” who work deeply within the political system is an important factor. It is not a secret to us here that politics draws the lust for power. Power draws on and exacerbates ambition and ambition is closely linked with avarice. Thus, we end up with power hunger people in the most powerful positions. There were even meetings that revolved around resume building which entails getting your name on everything that you can so you can use it for help getting a job on a political campaign…and running for office themselves.

Thinking for a second on the attitude and psychology of the kid running things for the libertarians here has me thinking that he does not realize that power is what is drawing him to libertarianism, but I suspect, this is his personality type. He is just one of those drawn unconsciously to power. This is evidenced in his reaction to my questions. He ridiculed me and the idea that people should look deeper than Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman for ‘the movement." When his leadership and direction was questioned he didn’t explain himself he distracted the others. Because perception matters. “If I can make a fool of this asshole questioning my motivations (which i may have never fully considered), then the group will still believe what I tell them and see things the way I do. Thus, I retain my rank and position within the ‘libertarians’.” He played the political card that dealt the highest damage control rating in the given circumstances of the YAL meeting. (I think Plato’s distaste for democracy was likely because Athens’ democracy sentenced Socrates to death for questioning things taken for granted. My disdain for democracy is similarly founded.)

Unfortunately, this only adds to my pessimism in regards to political success. The kid, again, I don’t think knows that this is his behavior pattern, but it should enlighten us as to the mentality of the people who are running in the stead of the illustrious Ron Paul. Ron Paul stands out because he never actually did give up his convictions. He played politics with certain issues, but never allowed the fundamentals to be taken for granted. I do not have the same faith those that were inspired by him. Sorry.

I’ll end with a quote from Bertrand Russell in his Conquest of Happiness

2

Why don’t you like Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman?

Edit: Just seem weird you never actually said those two were nationalists but you posted an article comparing libertariamism to facism lol. I don’t think Ayn Rand supported corperate tyranny, just seems like a stretch to post that silly article

3

That is definitely not the point of this post or thread, nor do I want to discuss it, so you are getting minimal answers.

AR: Support of Israel, hatred of libertarianism, dismissal of Kant (she isn’t qualified to criticize philosophy, plus Mises has Kant and Schopenhauer to thank for his epistemological basis, which Rand denies and labels ‘mysticism’ and ‘anti-reason’ and ‘anti-life’ - seriously, Kant, anti-life?; she had no idea what she was talking about)

MF: The withholding tax; his economic theory is fundamentally in agreement with Keynesianism (central bank existence is a given and growth of the money supply is a given); he is a staple of the traditional american rightwing conservatism (and therefore polemic and acts as a “wedge personality” within politics - like Bush or Kennedy or Keynes).

Libertarianism should do all it can to avoid association with polemic figures in history and contemporary politics. It needs its own rhetorical flair so that phraseology of libertarianism can be assuaged from right wing-ism. This involves cultivating the right sense/reference categories with specific words that will be more convincing than moral and economic arguments. We have to play the game of propaganda (psychlogical stuff) rather than facts and logic which don’t work as persuasion tactics in democratic politics (or at least, they play less of a role).

EDIT: RE: Edit: I’ll take the link out, I thought it was too ironic that the caption to goebels said what it said, so I posted it (it said what I was saying but for totally different reasons and a very obviously leftist vernacular). I specifically dismissed the article as influence on my own. The link is gone.

4

I agree Friedman and Rand made many mistakes like Friedman believed the great depression happened becaue the Federal Resrerve didn’t do enough. He also supported a welfare program worse than food stamps.

It is ironic though, if anything Ron Paul is more of a nationalist than Ayn Rand or Milton Friedman becausae he always brings up the founding fathers and the constitution. Plus any article that compares libertarianism to facism can’t be taken seriously. edit: He took out the link to the article

5

Like I said, my article was written without having read the other. I only typed in “politician propaganda” into google, clicked images and saw goebbels and posted it, when I read the caption i thought it was ironic that for entirely different reasons that article made a similar claim to my own.

__You seem to have ignored altogether my post and what it was about in order to discuss that idiotic dicision to post a link to the caption…__i took the link out so as to not distract the infants into discussing something other than the topic of which I posted.

6

'Nuff said, especially when one of the top comments is “72 butthurt Austrianfags.”

And as for Ayn Rand…

On Libertarians:

“They’re not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers… Most of them are my enemies… I’ve read nothing by Libertarians (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given.”

“a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people”

“plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose.”

…And to top it all off, the Ayn Rand Institute supports military intervention in Iran.

7

College libertarians is the bush-leagues. I don’t think it makes much sense to create sweeping generalizations on the basis of a group encounter.

Libertarians whom are still pushing for politicial reform and political action here simply haven’t yet been disillusioned deeply enough, haven’t questioned their most basic assumptions, and are perhaps ignorant of political history and the history of reform.

I think the effort towards seasteading is far more realistic than attempt at political change, for a variety of reasons, but especially for the chance of anything new happening in the short-term.

We’ll definitely sea a seastead in operation long before we see a libertarian win the nomination for president :stuck_out_tongue:

8

Seasteading is a joke. For a whole lot of reasons.

And I certainly don’t think that after Rand Paul, Bob Barr, and Gary Johnson that my observation of this group (ignorant followers who think they are informed and an avaricious leader who knows that they aren’t) is much different than the average NGO or awareness group.

9

Anyone who really endorses Milton Friedman beyond his microecnomic insights (which were really just rehitorations of sensible micro) while opposing Keynesianism is a hypocrite. In modern macro the only major difference between Monetarism and Keynesianism is what each side believes the slopes of these curves to be:

249×203 3.69 KB

Monetarism is simply money Keynesianism

@Aristophanes

Do you believe your experience to be indicative of a general trend within Libertarians today? Would you agree with the statement that as the far right seeks out for new ideas to replace their own defunct ideologies and to justify their rhetoric against liberals that they are increasingly taking ideas from Libertarianism?

10

Exactly, which is why he should be stricken from the top of the libertarian economists.

Yes. I kind of explained in the post above, there are enough prominent examples that my experience follws that leads me to believe that i have observed only a microcosm of what happens at very large levels.

Sort of.

i think they are taking the legitimacy of the name of libertarianism (and only when they look back and try to appeal to a Founder, for instance) certainly not with drug laws, immigration, etc. But those are iussues that I don’t pay much attention to. Banking and the M/I Complex are more important and the republicans are trying to implant those (statist) concepts into the new libertarianism (which will be polarized upon its inception, so all their work will be for naught as the left will see right through them. And we can all see that here.). So, all they will do is diluate and discredit libertarianism.

BTWs, these kids have, since I’ve stopped attending, gone around campus several times to write “Who is John Galt? WH 005 Thursdays @ 6” in chalk on the various sidewalks. At least, I think it is them, it might be some Randian cult that I am unaware of. This is how they are bringing people into libertrianism…by usuing AYN RAND as “bait.” Also, YAL and the other student NGO groups do get instructions and money from the national organization. They are given freedom to be creative, but they are taking orders; the bobo corporate model.

11

I’m staring a YAL chapter at my school in the next few weeks, so I’ll keep your points in mind.

I think one of the fundamental problems that such a group faces is the need to both entertain senior members and bring new ones in without scaring them off. So while we might need to have some readings on anarchy for the more experienced people, the new ones need to have supply and demand explained to them (essentially). Furthermore, when someone wants to go more in-depth in front of the whole group, it runs the risk of making the entire group seem like extremists. It also confuses many people who are simply not used to the concepts. This is just my experience with it.

12

Yeah, it’s probably best to agree with Rothbard, Harry Brown, and the LRC crowd on this: that the libertarian party / actual libertarians in office is just a fun little tool to get the message across - any serious attempt to be a politician is contrary to anything a libertarian could be.

As to the way some dude tried to hijack a group, that’s just the way any of these things seem to function regaardless of ideology - one should probably concentrate more of a list of tips and strategies to nip these things in the bud when they happen

That said; why would libs take a freaking pulp fiction detective novelst who wanted nothing to dowith libertarianism as a cornerstone? Ayn Rand is only fun for a type of épater le bourgeois to use on left wing academicians and bohemians - after that her uses become very limited.

13

First of all, I just want to say I had a much harder time reading that than I should have. Perhaps you should lay off the weed a bit, or maybe you were just particularly peeved when you wrote it, but I have no idea what you are talking about in half of it. I can tell from the rest of the thread that you apparently removed the caption you speak of in the OP, but evidently you didn’t adjust the language accordingly. I still have no idea what “that site” is that you speak of.

That being said, I tend to agree this is more or less what one will tend to see at such meetings. It’s just how things go. As someone else said, it’s more a personality type than anything else. The people who run these kind of school group meetings are quite similar, regardless of the subject of the group.

Ultimately while it may not be the most efficient or effective use of resources, it could certainly be a lot worse. There are definitely much more harmful things for kids to be reading than Ayn Rand.

I think if these kids stick with it long enough, they’ll continue to move in the right direction. Those that don’t will burn out and disappear anyway. Anyone who doesn’t, but instead starts to realize the various flaws in the economics and philosophies of their current idols, will continue searching for truth…and they’ll more than likely find it in the Austro-libertarian tradition, and the LvMI will be here to facilitate that. I’m pretty optimistic.

14

Evidently you have no idea what you’re talking about.

15

I wasn’t mad at all when I wrote it. It happened like three months ago. But, it did come as a revelation as I was smoking for the first time of the day (the most powerful one), so good call on that one. The caption of the photo said “This is the face of libertarianism today” referring to Goebbels. The site was saying that neocons are fascists that are using libertarians to forward their agenda. It was a similar statement to mine, but it was backed by all sorts of leftist economic rhetoric (mine was the psychology of power). I knew when I posted it that it would get flak for being a “source” for my rant even though it was not. That is what i tried to convey in parenthesis in the OP.

I suppose. Maybe Charles Manson? Did he write anything? Or jim Jones? oh oh L Ron hubbard wrote all kinds of books. Anyway, Rand promotes a very childish view of philosophy (again, her view of Kant says it all) that will hinder people’s coming to Mises if they buy her rants on mysticism. And no one is sticking up for Milton. Probably because we are here… He is the dangerous one to indoctrinate people with fervor for.

16

He was actually quite prolific from what I hear. This is just a short list of what has actually been published. God knows how much poetry and song lyrics he probably cranked out.

Don’t forget Isaac Asimov.

I’ll stick up for him. I find him extremely useful. He explicates and explains things with an unparalleled articulation and has a talent for relaying things to the layman probably better than anyone I’ve seen.

I will agree he can be dangerous, as he’s so good, that it can be quite easy for a newb (not coincidentally the kind of person who would get the most out of him) to fall into a trap of thinking he must be right on pretty much everything. This of course can lead to holding some bad ideas…mostly relating to minarchism and money. But again, as long as the person continues with their studies, they’ll continue to understand, and they’ll come across the critiques, and they’ll see the alternative views. Even I felt something just didn’t sit right about his explanation of the Great Depression even before I had heard any critiques of Friedman and the monetarist view. If someone is actually interested enough to be reading free-market economics in the first place, they’ll find some Austrian School. If nothing else, the sheer presence and prominence of the Mises Institute will pretty much guarantee that exposure.

But there is plenty a newbie can learn from Friedman. He can do a great deal in terms of enhancing a person’s economic outlook, and their view of the world. Again, his speaking ability and gift for capturing the attention of the listener, despite the topic being the “dismal science”, is uncanny. And even Rothbard said he was right at least 90% of the time.

17

It’s you job to lead these followers to Rothbard, the Austrian school etc. Give them literature, challenge this guy, point out the contradictions in what he says. There are a lot of beltway type “libertarians” and in my opionion they do a lot to subvert the movement (think Reagan). Friedman though, whatever his flaws, and they are legion, is a good guy. Rand was a bit of a nutjob but she did a lot of good too. I mean, it doesn’t really matter what gets people into the movement, once they are there and believing all these things its a lot easier to convert them to philosophic anarchism. Forge some personal relationships with these followers and naturally through conversation work on converting them to anarchism. Don’t focus too much on your conflict with the leader, but don’t subordinate yourself to him.

18

“It’s you job to lead these followers to Rothbard, the Austrian school etc. Give them literature, challenge this guy, point out the contradictions in what he says… Forge some personal relationships with these followers and naturally through conversation work on converting them to anarchism.”

That’s exactly what you’re going to do, right Aristophanes?

19

Actually, he’s going to alert them to the Zionist menace.

20

So the “new libertarians” don’t meet somebody’s purity test…meh. They’re going to get more accomplished than any number of apoliticals, however pure.

P.S. In my opinion, the crisis in the libertarian movement is not the superficiality of some people’s understanding of the philosophy, but rather some people’s political naivete. I also think that expecting more than a small fraction of the population to ever truly understand libertarianism is unreasonable.