Libertarian Disillusionment

Let's face it: the libertarian movement is in shambles. There is no commonly understood definition of what libertarianism is even among self-proclaimed libertarians, and to the extent that there is, this is only loosely based on a handful of principles which are nonetheless still interpreted and applied in many different ways. Self-proclaimed libertarians can't even agree with eachother on simple single issues like immigration and intellectual property. Hell, there isn't even a consensus on what anarchism and statism really is, and some people's favor for a government/state distinction sometimes adds to confusion.

Frankly, some of the positions taken by certain self-proclaimed libertarians are outright psychopathic. I've even debated with people who will actually defend the absurd implication of being allowed to arbitrarily shoot a child for being on your lawn, and to add insult to injury this is defended in the name of non-aggression and property rights! It seems like an alarming number of self-proclaimed libertarians defend aggression in the name of non-aggression. They have latched onto libertarianism only as a sugar-coating or legitimization for their own personal motivation to get away with psychopathy.

This is especially true in the case of explicitly right-wing libertarians, who appear to only nominally oppose the current secular state because they view it as competition to their own prefered forms of authoritarianism. Libertarian concepts are only useful to these people as a means of justifying racism, classism, parental authority, the church and feudal landlords. This extends well beyond the normal implications of a vulgar libertarianism, as it is vulgar in every sense possible. These right-wing libertarians only dislike the state because they mistakenly see it as standing in the way of "natural heirarchy" and "natural authority".

They then go on to essentially propose their authoritarian preferances as the new state, while sugar-coating it with libertarian concepts or terminology to give it legitimacy. Their views on the establishment of a libertarian society almost directly mirrors the artisocratic justifications for political systems. This can be blatantly seen in Hans Hoppe's concept of "natural elites", which is just a right-libertarian version of the exact same artistocratic justification for the state that traditional conservatives give, despite having a veneer of being opposed to the current statist intellectuals (who are mostly disliked for their socially liberal tendencies of all things).

By no means am I letting some of the crazier elements on "the left" off the hook here either though. Frankly, many of the anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists are practically indistinguishable from Stalinists in my experience. Oh, sure, they might have some sensible egalitarian rhetoric sometimes, but they often fall back on explicitly marxist and authoritan socialist positions out of their zeal to oppose private tyranny. This is particularly true of the Chomskyites, who worshop whatever Chomsky says without any second thought, all the while advocating the practical universalization of state power in the name of egalitarianism! We're supposed to tolerate the increasing encrouchment of the state into our lives out of the false promise that it will rid us of economic exploitation and the state will then just wither away. Nonesense!

Just as I'm highly skeptical of the "private city" models of anarcho-capitalists, the idea of a global federation of unions terrifies me, and the "worker's council" models of anarcho-communists may very well give reason for suspicion that mirror the reasons for having suspicion about anarcho-capitalist models. Now, I know that ideally this federation of unions idea is supposed to be decentralized and leave an option for secession, but sometimes I get the sneaking suspicion that some of these people aren't really advocating them that way, they are normatively advocating them as a uniform or absolute system. I've even seen some anarcho-communists justify using violence to stop people from making or engaging in wage labor contracts, even against the consent of the worker in the scenario. This perplexes me, especially since the anarcho-communist is actually going against "the workers"!

So what do we see? We see an incredibly divisive and one-dimensional split between two completely wrong parties: anarcho-capitalists and right-wing libertarians who arbitrarily defend the status quo and tradition on one end, and anarcho-communists and anarcho-syndicalists who advocate arbitrary violence in the name of turning the world into a gigantic ant farm on the other end. As these two parties fight more and more, they are radicalized even more in their respective wrong directions. The anarcho-capitalist and right-libertarian's knee-jerk opposition to all things "left" leads them down the path of becoming arch-conservatives, and the anarcho-communist's knee-jerk opposition to all things "property" leads them down the path of becoming just another group of authoritarian socialists.

When I made the jump from being a minarchist to an anarchist, I had the impression that I had crossed a hurdle that leaves room for more clarity and consensus. I was wrong. The minarchist vs. anarchist debate is actually being mirrored within the anarchist movement in all sorts of different ways. Hence, you will find some market anarchists opposing the proposals of anarcho-capitalists on the grounds that such proposals are indistinguishable from a state or blatantly risk devolving into a state, and you will find social anarchists opposing the proposals of anarcho-communists on the grounds that such proposals are indistinguishable from a state or undermine basic principles. These are the more rational people in the bunch to the extent that they are genuinely being sure not to let authoritarianism be snuck in through the back door.

This gives good reason for disillusionment.