r/inthenews • u/Advanced_Drink_8536 • May 27 '24

Donald Trump rejected by Libertarians, gets less than 1% of vote article

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-rejected-libertarians-less-one-percent-vote-presidential-election-1904870
29.3k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

2.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

126

u/Uncle-Cake May 27 '24

What he didn't realize is that Libertarians don't actually care about winning.

114

u/electron-envy May 27 '24

Got to hand it to them. Their ideology is fuckin weird, but they stand by it.

84

u/WaltKerman May 27 '24 edited May 27 '24

Libertarian is just anti-authoritarian by definition. It's why he was rejected. 

Then there is the libertarian platform, which is where you have to draw a line. Libertarians can't agree on this and there is a lot of "no true Scotsman" fallacy going on. So the result is often leaning to the strange far end spectrum. 

 It's one of the reasons they can't win.

Edit: If you wants to see what I meant by "No True Scotsman" (No True Libertarian could believe....) just look at some of the comments arguing below me here, and how widely they vary.

27

u/Bored_Amalgamation May 27 '24

Libertarianism is a dead political ideology that requires everyone e being a rational actor and beliving that negative externalities dont exist.

6

u/ClickLow9489 May 27 '24

Free market this free market that acting like monopolys don't happen and don't need regulation.

0

u/Puzzleheaded_Yam7582 May 27 '24

We have monopolies now and the government bails them out. Its subsidized monopolies.

13

u/The_last_of_the_true May 27 '24

I love when libertarian’s create government structures and agencies while arguing against government structures and agencies.

Ask a libertarian what happens in libertarian world when someone steals your property or does you wrong in business. How do you address grievances without violence? They end up creating a court system just like what we have now. Lmao.

They do this with just about every problem you propose to them. Libertarianism is a fantasy land political philosophy best left for debates than real life politics. Hell look at Argentina. They’re speed-running economic collapse.

10

u/Crosco38 May 27 '24

Reminds me of the South Park episode where they all become anarchists and destroy the government. Then when chaos inevitably ensues, they slowly start assigning everyone a job and end up recreating the government.

1

u/EduinBrutus May 27 '24

Anarchists don't even want to destroy or eliminate government.

Anarchists want the complete elimination of hierarchy. A functional government is still perfectly possible (well its a bit of a blue sky doctrine so "possible" is a tenuous claim anyway).

2

u/WhatsTheHoldup May 27 '24

A functional government is still perfectly possible

That doesn't make any sense.

If I am equal to this "government" in the sense that they have no hierarchical power over me, how exactly am I being "governed"?

If a government does not have hierarchical power then laws are voluntary.

1

u/EduinBrutus May 27 '24 edited May 27 '24

As I said, its a somewhat tenuous claim on how possible it is.

But conceptually the idea of a flat, non-hierarchical government is possible.

Its just very unlikely in practice.

Most of these fringe beliefs are fringe because they lack internal coherence. Anarchism is definitely one of them.

I would say, that smaller countries do demonstrate a much closer ideal towards non-hierarchical government. The stratification is much smaller but also the level of accountability (which prevents hierarchy from forming) is much stronger as well. Remember its the government which holds power and the monopoly of violence. So it can still be non-herarchicaly when the office holders are fully accountable.

1

u/WhatsTheHoldup May 27 '24

But conceptually hte idea of a flat, non-hierarchical government is possible in theory.

Right, I'm asking you to explain this "concept" because so far it doesn't even seem possible in theory.

We get rid of all hierarchies. I will grant anarchists their claim (which I don't fully agree with) that this is now a fairer society and people will have no rational incentive to steal, hurt or be violent now that all material issues are resolved. Let's say 99% of crime disappears because of how well anarchy works societally.

People who have biological development issues completely separate from societal systems (like serial killers who are born psychopathic) continue to exist.

It appears that your only 2 choices are "let them kill anyone they want, we can't stop them" or abandon the values of anarchism and introduce a hierarchical power society can use to have serial killers institutionalized.

Is this theory only possible by ignoring them entirely and saying "nuh uh, serial killers don't exist", or does the concept that is possible in theory actually try to account for this issue in theory by allowing some amounts of hierarchies where it is necessary, or through some non hierarchical solution I'm not creative enough to think of?

1

u/EduinBrutus May 27 '24 edited May 27 '24

Hierarchy refers to individuals not institutions.

Government is an institution (or technically a collection of institutions). Institutions are non-hierarchical when they are "flat", i.e. the restrictions on rights and obligations or provision of rights and obligations applies to all individuals equally (or more restrictively all citizens).

The challenge is to embody office holders who can run that institution without them personally benefiting from an elevated position within a hierarchy created through the necessity of needing office holrders. This is pretty hard but in theory it is achievable with perfect accountability.

In terms of people who have additional challenges such as people with developmental issues, you're confusing ability with hierarchy. Hierarchy is based on rights and obligations not ability. You can have a meritocratic, non-hierarchical society. In terms of Justice, if the same system of Justice applies to all with the same punishments/rehabilitation, it is definitionally not hierarchical.

Again, at least in theory.

And to stress, I'm not claiming this is a robust worldview and that it is entirely internally coherent. But it is somewhat defensible intellectually. Unlike, for example, AnCaps.

1

u/WhatsTheHoldup May 27 '24

Hierarchy refers to individuals not institutions.

That is not strictly correct.

If you're trying to suggest anarchists use "hierarchy" differently, and want to redefine the term then I would ask for the different definition you're using. Obviously we're talking about different things and that's harming by ability to understand you.

Hierarchy: a system in which people or things are arranged according to their importance

social hierarchy Some monkeys have a very complex social hierarchy.

political hierarchy He rose quickly through the political hierarchy to become party leader.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/hierarchy

In usual use, a hierarchy is simply a way of categorizing things and then ordering them by those categories. An institution is absolutely a "thing" that can be placed among a hierarchy of other "things". And there is still a social and political hierarchy within that system.

The federal government being above the state government being above the city government is still a hierarchy of power regardless of how "flat" these institutions internally operate. The president being above the congressman is a political hierarchy regardless of how "flat" the laws they produce are.

The idea that a 4 year old should listen to a parent creates a social hierarchy. I'm assuming anarchists aren't anti parenting but a family structure is certainly a hierarchy and it's definitely not a flat one.

The challenge is to embody office holders who can run that institution without them personally benefiting from an elevated position within a hierarchy created through the necessity of needing office holders.

An office holder having additional powers in creating laws over an average citizen already is a hierarchy.

This is pretty hard but in theory it is achievable with perfect accountability.

It sounds like it's only "achievable" by ignoring that the concept of voting is inherently applying a social hierarchy by voters having voters rank candidates they like/agree with above others..

In terms of people who have additional challenges such as people with developmental issues, you're confusing ability with hierarchy

...WHAT. NOOOOOOO.

Either you've completely missed the point or you're intentionally trying to lump in serial killers with "developmental issues" like autism so you can ignore the point.

A serial murderer with intense anger and no regret or empathy is not simply a "person with developmental issues". They are a danger to everyone around them.

Does jail or some medical institution to send them to still exist (a hierarchy) in this ideology or not?

And again, to stress, I'm not claiming this is a robust worldview and that it is entirely internally coherent.

With respect, the only reason I'm arguing is because you keep trying to claim this is "possible".

If it's not internally consistent even in theory while trying to steel man it, then it's just not possible.

The issue stops being hierarchies in general, it stops being ideologically resisting any hierarchy (even when they work well) and it becomes about focusing on how these hierarchies function and where changes are needed.

1

u/EduinBrutus May 27 '24

This is really the instrisic problem (and something I commented on as to how definitions are important).

In political science, hierarchy has a specific meaning and it relates to people (or more strictly citizens).

If you reconsider everything with that understood poltiical science definition, it should answer all your questions.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

Oh, damn, last time I had that discussion the libertarian said they'd just go kill that person

2

u/The_last_of_the_true May 27 '24

Ask them what happens if that person has bigger guns or more people. Gotta keep probing. That’s when the fun starts.

2

u/ItsAllSoClear May 27 '24

It's a spectrum. You have Libertarians that don't want structured government and others that just want less. You can have both centrist and extremist voters.

If I monotyped you based on your party choice, you would probably cite the same.

2

u/Omegalazarus May 27 '24

I think you are mixing libertarian with anarchist. Libertarian may be less govt, but certainly not no govt.

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

[deleted]

1

u/murderspice May 27 '24

Its just a democrat who hasn’t finished thinking it all through yet.

1

u/OssimPossim May 28 '24

"Libertarians are like house cats: absolutely convinced of their fierce independence while utterly dependent on a system they don't appreciate or understand." (Unknown).

1

u/spald01 May 28 '24

Ask a libertarian what happens in libertarian world when someone steals your property or does you wrong in business. How do you address grievances without violence? They end up creating a court system just like what we have now. Lmao.

This sounds like your confusing libertarianism with anarchism.

Also, are you pretending that Argentina wasn't already in the middle of economic collapse before their last election? With 200% inflation rates?

9

u/SubtleDistraction May 27 '24

I was a registered Libertarian for a while, and voted conservative pretty much until Trump made me open my eyes. I'd read about robber barons, and company towns and all the evil businesses get up into, and it slowly dawned on me, oh shit, we're still there.

5

u/Bakkster May 27 '24

They're like house cats: convinced of their rugged independence, but utterly dependent on systems they can't understand.

1

u/Grand-Tusam May 27 '24

Its like communism but also completely oposite to communism.

1

u/[deleted] May 27 '24

No, its an ideology rooted in a specific political position that focuses on individual liberty but does not say governments can't do stuff.

1

u/Bored_Amalgamation May 27 '24

When the impact of that "individual liberty" affects others, it's a problem. Libertarianism was useful when America first started up until the Industrial Revolution. The role of the government has been ever increasing to great benefit to the public. While the individual "goal" of libertarism is nice for personal conduct/character, when it comes to laws, budgetary spending, and regulations, libertarianism has no answer except "no". Libertarianism doesnt exist in a society.

1

u/ppeujpqtnzlbsbpw May 28 '24

Same thing with leftist ideology, except that one is still very much alive

1

u/WaltKerman May 27 '24

Libertarianism is a "dead political ideology" because the US is already mostly libertarian.

Most democracies lean libertarian.

3

u/notsafeformactown May 27 '24

"Libertarian" is such a nothing word anymore. Some people use it to mean basically they want basically an anarchy, with just a few laws. Private property ownership, and some for of bare bones public services like cops and firefighters.

Everything else is gone. No public school. No social security, no medicare or medicaid, no publicly built roads (they would almost all be toll roads), no regulation of any businesses, etc.

We certainly aren't even CLOSE to that in the US or anywhere.

Other people just use it to mean socially liberal, meaning anything and everything is allowed (with consent). Drugs, sex work, entirely inclusive of all LGBTQ+ rights, etc.

So what exactly do you mean by libertarian leaning?

1

u/WaltKerman May 27 '24

It can mean that extreme, but it can also mean less than that. It can also include regulations.

It's a range.

It LEANS toward the official definition:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/libertarianism-politics

Vs that of an authoritarian government system.

1

u/Bored_Amalgamation May 27 '24

Irs dead because we have an interconnected federal government and state governments. There is no rugged individualism that isnt poverty. It died with the industrial revolution and white people getting exploited en mass.

Edit: it's people with main character syndrome with political opinions.

1

u/WaltKerman May 27 '24

You might be having a stroke, or drunk....