*It is good to that my definition of infighting differs from other people's. I like to differentiate between "infighting" and "debate." I believe that there is a different between the two - debate can be both good and bad, and some is needed to challenge each other intellectually, while infighting is unproductive and is always bad. Julie Borowski, on the other hand, seemingly does not see the difference between the two. Good to note here...I have been meaning to write about Julie and her perspectives on infighting for a while now. Will this be my next post?
 |
| Looky at what I found! |
Ironically, attempts to address infighting seems to lead to even more infighting about whether or not infighting deters potential libertarians, or like I said in the first sentence, is a prominent factor for why libertarianism is not mainstream or popular.
While this is definitely not a scientific study (hopefully I did not need to say this in order for you to figure it out), I want to see what nonlibertarians have to say about this all.
Nonlibertarians: So in the comments, attempt to answer:
1) Why is libertarianism not mainstream?
2) Have you seen libertarian infighting, and if so, is it as bad or worse than infighting in other organizations or movements?
3) What deters you from libertarian philosophy or from becoming a libertarian?
4) What have libertarians done or said that makes you look down upon them?
This is not formal, so be free to answer whichever catches your interest. Try not to use this to attack individuals, unless it is along the lines of, "I think Ron Paul is a bit loony, and I know a lot of libertarians look up to him, so that's why I don't take libertarians seriously." I am hoping that people reading this get some insight into what nonlibertarians really think and why.
Libertarians: You can answer too if you like, but I would appreciate it if you point out that you are a libertarian. If you want to, you can attempt to debate with anyone you do not agree with.
If you share this (more shares = more comments), you will make me happy.
1) I think libertarianism is actually gaining a good deal of clout in the political mainstream lately. As for why Libertarians don't have more electoral success I'd say it's because (a) the Libertarian Party is a shambling mess, and (b) our voting system makes it impossible for third parties to win almost anywhere.
ReplyDelete2) Libertarian infighting seems to be worse than anarchist infighting, but better than Trotskyist infighting.
3) I think a lot of libertarianism's basic assumptions are downright wrong and ahistorical. I maintain that the state is essential to capitalism, rather than opposed to it, and that there is no unencumbered self. Libertarianism also tends to be very abstract and axiomatic, to the point of being incapable of addressing data which doesn't fit its narrative.
4) Libertarianism seems to attract a lot of white dudes who think they know everything. This is very frustrating because, as Isaac Asimov once said, people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.
1) I would consider libertarianism to be mainstream, depending on how you define libertarianism, of course. Both major parties have large elements which I would consider to be libertarian. The Libertarian Party, on the other hand, is a fringe party for the same reason why any third party is fringe in this country; our electoral system. First past the post, combined with the electoral college and other blatant methods of freezing out third parties (campaign finance rules, blocking out third party candidates from debates, etc.) ensure that America has a solid, hegemonic two party system, with both of the parties existing as "big tents", while third parties, such as the Libertarian Party, become home only to fringe elements of society, people with low levels of political efficacy, and ideological purists, further hurting their chances. Right now, the Libertarian Party has found itself a more credible candidate than other third parties in former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson, and thus should expect to perform better than your usual third party.
ReplyDelete2) I generally try to avoid libertarians, but from what I've observed libertarian infighting isn't much worse than, say, socialist infighting, it just tends to occur a lot more at the individual level, rather than the group level, since libertarians tend to be more...."individual focused" in their political and philosophical orientation.
3) A few of the many things that turn me off libertarianism are the hostility towards identity politics, the post-materialist fetishism of bourgeois political constructs, the disregard for the plight of underprivileged and marginalized groups in society, the ignorance that many libertarians display with regard to their understanding of the symbiotic relationship of the state and capitalism, and the ludicrous worship of the NAP and subsequently their fundamental misunderstanding of how coercion works from a philosophical standpoint. Also, the fact that libertarians are overwhelmingly privileged, middle to upper-middle class straight, white, cisgender men who completely lack the capability to empathize with me or understand the issues that I face in my everyday life.
4) On paper, I shouldn't hate libertarians as much as I do. I find the philosophy both wrong and silly, but libertarians in this country are hardly as damaging, from a utilitarian perspective, as liberals are. I agree with libertarians on many issues, though we often have similar positions for completely different reasons and therefore offer entirely different prescriptions and solutions to the issues that we concurrently identify. However, more infuriating to me is not what the libertarian position on issues are, but what sorts of priorities libertarians give to issues. While not every libertarian is an Elliot Rodger, or even a fedora-wearing neckbearded Men's Rights Activist, I shouldn't be shocked that a group which is overwhelmingly made up of rich, straight, white, cisgender men are going to prioritize issues that affect rich, straight, white cisgender men, and this sort of agenda setting is done by privileged elements in every political movement. However, it seems to be particularly accentuated in the "liberty" movement due to the seeming inherent disregard that libertarian philosophies tend to have towards intellectual and moral consideration above the individual level.
I really appreciate your answer, and even as a libertarian, I can understand your pain. Unfortunately, a lot of libertarians seem to be very naive, or even just plain ignorant, to reality (such as towards the "plight of underprivileged and marginalized groups in society"). The good news is that, at least from what I'm seeing, libertarians are becoming less of what you described, and more...normal. Those at Students for Liberty, for example, are more diverse than the stereotypical libertarian you described and are more likely to address social justice issues. There are theories from my friends that this may be because of the influx of younger people becoming libertarians. We also love to make fun of NAP worship.
ReplyDelete