I'm an ex-libertarian

I'd consider myself politically aware for the past 20 years or so. I'm nearly 40 now, but then in my teens I didn't really care that much about politics. I was a person, albeit young then, who thought "politics doesn't affect me". Such a tone vexes me now, since we're all affected by laws or state dictates somehow, so I'd most likely be annoyed with my teen self at this point.

But I guess it was a mix of growing up, and also deciding to read up on political stuff and even take a course at my local college in Government and Politics, which opened my eyes to this world.

From my initial leanings, it was generally classical liberal beliefs that spoke to me the most, and from then on, I came across libertarianism in the early 2000s Web.

There was no social media back then, and message boards and Usenet groups had a way bigger role than they do today. Once I had read some libertarian points online, and started to listen to podcasts of the likes of the late Harry Browne, I got hooked on it.

It was an ideology that suited me to the ground, and I was eager to help bring this about in reality.

But I changed. From 2001-2009, I was a hardcore libertarian. I even moved to full anarcho-capitalism eventually. What changed is a mixture of apathy, argumentations, and the attitudes of libertarians regarding dialoguing with others.

And in frankness - libertarianism is stuck in abstraction without much testing with reality.

Awareness and excitement

Libertarianism appealed to me at the time since I fit with my worldview at the time.

I was young, had few responsibilities apart from a job and rent/bills, and fit to some degree with my personality and moral system. I consider myself an individualist, and think people are happiest when living and speaking their own truths, since we're all different.

I would attend libertarian meet ups, listen to podcasts, and buy endless books by the likes of Rothbard, von Mises, et al.

I would look forward to online discussions, and I even kept a blog of libertarianism issues for a while. It's long been lost, but then I was very enthusiastic about this and wanted to help bring about change.

My country didn't have a libertarian political party, like the USA does, but I would attend university events and talks on libertarian matters, and genuinely I wanted to effect change.

Realisation

I had a realisation by the time I was thirty, that libertarianism wouldn't work.

Well, it wouldn't work in this current global climate.

The positions that libertarians take up, such as fully private healthcare, no state education, privately-owned roads, etc. are extreme by most measures in the world.

It would take a pretty radical step for them all to be implemented.

And considering I was a hard an-cap at one point - woah, no state? Really?

Humans have always had governments. Well not always, but states have existed for millennia at least. Hunter-gatherers even have authorities, if not as rigorously structured as in more settled societies. It's likely that once settled villages and communities grew into larger societies, such as the Indus Valley Civilisation, ancient Ur, Sumer, etc. that states have become a norm in human discourse.

I generally thought that to get from A to B there needs to be a process. And the process that most libertarians had, and still have, isn't sound.

Too abstract

Part of this unsound conduct is an over-reliance on theory.

The Canadian conservative commentator Lauren Southern had flirted with libertarianism to some extent but has said libertarianism is too theoretical.

I tend to agree.

A standard argument is that "the marketplace would solve things" or "rational actors would do x..."

This may work fine on paper, but who says it would work well in practice?

Musing over what Rothbard or von Mises wrote decades ago is one thing, but that's what these gentlemen's views were - theories and little else.

A movement cannot work in the abstract alone.

This moves into the next point....

Fringe for a reason

Libertarianism is fringe for a reason, in part since there's too much reliance on abstract theory.

Due to this, libertarians are often a minor fringe in most countries in the world.

The emphasis on theory blinds libertarians to spreading the message out there to the masses.

It also inhibits people in hearing libertarian messages.

The first reason I'll cite is a lack of good communication skills.

Libertarians often might consider others "stupid" for not getting it or subscribing to it.

Is this a wise method?

I don't see how it is.

It's not how persuasion works, generally.

Over the past 100 years, there have been reasons why Marxism and even Nazism/fascism rose to prominence.

Imagine a poor peasant worker in the former Republic of China. S/he had little to hope for, other than being a worker, raising a family, and being under the government's thumb. The Communists knew this, and used the prevailing state at the time to grow their masses. Once the Japanese had been defeated in WWII, Mao and the Communists beat the Republic when the Civil War resumed, and formed the current People's Republic of China.

Hitler and the Nazis used the backdrop of the Weimar Republic to get to power, and after winning elections used the Enabling Act to form the Third Reich with Hitler as its Fuhrer.

The USA itself was founded amidst widespread colonial dismay with the British government, and the burgeoning Enlightenment sentiments of the day. The Founding Fathers were contemporaneous with Rosseau, Hume, Smith, and other bedrock Enlightenment thinkers. In some ways they saw their new country as an experiment of these values. Both went hand in hand to forge one of the oldest existing states on Earth today.

The point is here that Mao, Hitler, and the Founding Fathers all had the empathy to use a prevailing state of affairs to create a new paradigm. Hitler's model evidently was savage - as was Mao's. Communist China still exists though, as does naturally the United States, so their foundational efforts have not gone in vain.

To use further examples, the contemporary West is generally anti-racist, anti-sexist, and pro-LGBT. This is in stark contrast to a century ago, and even in the past 30 years or so. There's a reason for this. It's been a steady and sure education, realisation, and re-definition of our values as societies. The words and deeds of people like Dr. King, Malcolm X, the Stonewall rioters, et al, all contributed to this. We've come to realise that we're all people and worthy of respect despite our differences. Trans rights has grown over the past decade, using much of the same dialogue, rhetoric and logic of other equality fighters before them.

Libertarians, seemingly, cannot see how to implement their theory, and just rely on abstract theorising.

It's not enough to say "let's abolish public schools!" and then expect others to accept this off the bat. It requires some savvy and empathy to see how one's ideals fit in the current paradigm and can change the paradigm.

Communist ideology was manna from heaven to a 1930s/1940s Chinese farmer. Mao and the Communists knew this. That's different to a libertarian in 2021, advocating the end of public schooling, in a climate grossly unprepared for this policy conclusion.

Libertarians have plenty of examples, whether historical or current, to draw on in pushing their message. It's clear that relying on theory alone won't cut it.

Atomistic

Dr. Thomas Sowell is a noted conservative thinker over the past several decades, and said on the Rubin Report a few years ago that libertarianism was too atomistic.

Dr. Sowell is a tower of intellectual might IMHO, and in this case, he has struck gold again.

Individualism is one thing. We are all individuals as human beings. We look differently, and have unique personalities, needs, interests, tastes, and goals.

However, we exist in a social sphere, and freedom is limited by virtue of this social setting. Humans inherently engage and interact in groups, whether via families, friends, etc. We co-operate and whilst we are individuals we still exist in groupings.

Libertarianism focuses too much, I feel, on the individual, and not on the whole. Both are valid in the human sphere - and libertarianism focuses way too much on self-interest.

Humans rely on each other, and libertarianism often neglects this base reality.

Way beyond current realities

Libertarians, like most ideological followers, have differences.

Some are small-staters - who only believe in the police, armed forces, and court system.

Others are anarcho-capitalists - who endorse a stateless society with competing dispute-resolution bodies who provide services and uphold individual rights.

Both positions are way beyond the current political norms, anywhere in the world.

The notion that the market will provide all services is untested. Most economists of varying shades believe in market failures and public goods, for instance. Whether public goods cannot exist is unknown. It's never really been tried before, at least not in the modern world.

And together with poor communication and empathy with the uninitiated, it's no surprise that libertarianism is fringe.

I came to a realisation that libertarianism is a long way off, if it's ever implemented.

The now

As for now, I've renounced a lot of my libertarian views. I believe firmly in public education, public healthcare, and other non-libertarian stances.

But I do hold on to much socially liberal views - such as drug legalisation, pro-sex work, etc. If I were to characterise myself, I'd say I'm a wet classical liberal/One Nation Tory.

Would I go back? Not really. The libertarian movement needs to change and be less abstract. And why spend one's life in pushing for something that isn't really viable in the present world?

I have nothing against libertarians or their ideology, incidentally. But I do feel the movement needs to change, and not be stuck in its head as much.

It may seem that I'm mocking libertarians and their ideology here. I'm genuinely not and have no ill will towards them. However, I feel they need to revise and re-evaluate how they engage for them to prosper.