Libertarianism

I’ve long said that libertarianism is the political philosophy of middle school boys and arrested development, the apotheosis of solipsism. Libertarianism holds that property rights are the only rights that matter, and that in any conflict the marketplace, not the state, must and can resolve conflicts between interests.

That, my friends, is feudalism. And feudalism, like the socialism that libertarians so fear, is and has always been coercive.

“If you take seriously the premise that property rights are inviolable and that democratic constraint on property is illegitimate, you cannot avoid the concentration of power in private hands. You cannot prevent the emergence of hierarchy. You cannot maintain anything resembling equal liberty for all.

 

“The libertarian response has always been: “But the market will prevent that! Competition will discipline power!” But this is faith, not argument. History shows us repeatedly that markets, left unconstrained by democratic governance, produce monopoly, oligopoly, and systematic advantage for those who already have power. The invisible hand doesn’t prevent domination—it enables it.”

 

*snip*

“When your philosophy about freedom leads to feudalism, when your theory about liberty produces hierarchy, when your commitment to voluntary exchange results in systematic domination—it’s time to admit the framework is broken.”

 

So what is to be done?

“. . . if your instinct about human freedom was right, if your commitment to individual dignity was genuine, if your suspicion of concentrated power was well-founded—then you don’t have to abandon those values. You just have to abandon the philosophy that betrayed them.

 

“The classical liberal tradition is still here. It’s still alive. And it offers what libertarianism promised but could never deliver: a framework that actually protects liberty for ordinary people, not just for those who own property.

 

“Classical liberalism understands that freedom requires democratic institutions, not their absence. That rule of law protects liberty precisely by constraining what the powerful can do. That property rights serve human flourishing when embedded in frameworks of mutual obligation and the common good. That government isn’t the enemy of freedom but its foundation—the means by which we collectively secure the conditions that make individual liberty possible.

 

“This isn’t compromise. It isn’t settling for less freedom. It’s recognizing what freedom actually is and what it actually requires.

 

“When you say you value liberty, ask yourself: liberty for whom? Just for those with enough property to live independently. Or liberty for everyone, including those without inherited wealth, those without perfect health, those without the advantages that compound over generations?”

To read the rest, click the link.

https://open.substack.com/pub/mikebrock/p/libertarianism-is-dead?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yes, the CDC can change its mind

The Nobel Laureate economist Paul Samuelson famously acknowledged in a Meet the Press interview: “Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?” This observation applies to the advice from medical authorities such as the CDC and WHO during the COVID pandemic. Some members of the public are fond of pillorying these agencies for having published different guidelines at different times, as though health officials are in the business of issuing ex cathedra dogma rather than responding to incomplete and ambiguous information. Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals with the weight of evidence. A scientific hypothesis is one that is capable of being tested and falsified by experiment. I get it. I used to teach problem-based learning to first year medical students, and they often struggled with what to do with incomplete and ambiguous information, which is what physicians in clinics do every day. Sometimes, one cannot wait for all the tests to be completed and all the data analyz...
Read more

I agree with RFK Jr.

Though it feels weird to say it, RFK Jr and I agree on something: curtailing direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals. “ The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending.   Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it’s instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.   “The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry’s ability to d...
Read more

About that Trump lawsuit

So Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch for defamation because of the release of a salacious doodle. Nothing remarkable about Donald J. Trump weaponizing the legal system against his opponents, I know. But there are some things that do bear remark here: “ . . . he's suing Rupert Murdoch personally. But you know who he's not suing? Lachlan Murdoch, who's actually the chairperson of News Corp and Fox, who's actually the decision-maker. Rupert Murdoch has no official role there anymore. He's an adviser.   “So, I thought that was revealing in a lot of ways, because it isn't just about going after the entity. It's sort of this expansion spillover, trying to send as much of a message as you possibly can. He's sort of hitting every potential lever, not just against Murdoch and that empire, but then all the other media properties in the future. It's also about sending an example.” “HAYES: Yeah. That, to me, is the point here, is that these lawsuits are not lawsuits...
Read more