← Articles · Theory
The downfall of 'classical' libertarianism.
By TThomas_TThe_Privatized_TTank_Engine ·
Since Rothbard’s contributions, libertarianism has been the go-to name for a radical, extreme version of the Austrian tradition. However, it is fraudulent to say that the term has modernly been described as an anarchist propertarian social order—the Tea Party movement, for example, has been the foremost bearer of the libertarian flag, name and identity.
When asked, Professor Hoppe has said:
“Part of the reason is of course that people don’t read much they are lazy and the more acceptable version is of course a classical liberal version”
“And the other reason is indeed that the bigger this movement grew the less worse was a number of people who actually read a lot of things they were satisfied with just getting a few slogans and that was enough.”
Clearly, the prominent form of political, philosophical, and economic discussion for the modern times is being as rowdy, direct, simplistic, caricaturesque, and rage-inducing as possible. This form of thought-debate, not only has grown, but it has reached a seemingly eternal and definitive form; the internet. The internet provides the highest time preference for any environment regarding “intellectual” discussion. With its model, argumentation has been reductionist to say the least; arguments have become spicy memes, quotes have become slogans, and opinions have become a battleground for seeing how many opponents can be persuaded, and how long one can keep the opinions themselves after the vanishing of their pride in holding them due to the amount of time that has passed.
Furthermore, most “debates” held on internet forums have been distinguished for being extremely unproductive and a radical waste of time. Since the internet provides eternal anonymity, most “debaters” will use idealistic or post-ironic identifications such as profile pictures, banners, memes, etc. to then shield themselves from foreign opinions.
An interesting example of its consequences is how “intelligence” or “smartness” is, nowadays, considered to be the amount of knowledge one holds, rather than the difficulty at which one learn uncharted topics.
So, the question remains, has libertarianism been “dumbed-down” for the masses, incorporating “obvious” social standards?
The answer would be a relentless yes. In fact, Friedrich August von Hayek, a “libertarian” to most, has answered this question accidentally in his book “The Road to Serfdom”:
“It is a revealing fact that few planners are content to say that central planning is desirable. Most of them affirm that we can no longer choose but are compelled by circumstances beyond our control to substitute planning for competition. The myth is deliberately cultivated that we are embarking on the new course not out of free will but because competition is spontaneously eliminated by technological changes which we neither can reverse nor should wish to prevent. This argument is rarely developed at any length–it is one of the assertions taken over by one writer from another till, by mere iteration, it has come to be accepted as an established fact. It is, nevertheless, devoid of foundation. The tendency towards monopoly and planning is not the result of any ‘objective facts beyond our control’, but the product of opinions fostered and propagated for half a century till they have come to dominate all our policy.
Of the various arguments employed to demonstrate the inevitability of planning, the one most frequently heard is that technological changes have made competition impossible in a constantly increasing number of fields, and that the only choice left to us is between control of production by private monopolies and direction by the government. This belief derives mainly from the Marxist doctrine of the ‘concentration of industry’, although, like so many Marxist ideas, it is now found in many circles who have received it at third or fourth hand and do not know whence it derives.”
Therefore, another directly related question arises—how should libertarianism be propagated and popularized?
If libertarianism is the voluntary social order organized by private property; then it should be quite self-evident that its application can produce any desired environment—a sandbox, if you will. And, as certain as I can be, most counter-arguments to this can be refuted with three simple steps of which I will give the name: “Exclusion norms”:
To create a desired social order, one must, of course, have subjective goals, preferences and values to base on which to base this order;
To sustain this social order, one must require a space to enforce it on, otherwise it would be imaginary;
To obtain a space in order to enforce subjective values characteristic of a social order, one must have subjective space; therefore, private property.
How does one acquire property outside of their organism, then?
It is clear that, with self-ownership justified, the pursuit of maintaining this throughout a lifetime, that is, self-ownership until the organism itself ceases to work naturally, must require the usage of external objects, as, of course, the body alone cannot produce nutrients and related necessities. Thus, unclaimed territories and goods, can and should be claimed by its first finder, as these goods and territories cannot argue for themselves.