After the Return: Reflections on Libertarianism

During my hiatus from life in general I'm not sure I would have called myself a libertarian. Not because I was anything else instead but the whole idea of politics and ideology was both annoying and absurd to me. Regardless if it was leftist or rightist ideas I just couldn't understand how so many could be so highly engaged by them that they colored their whole world with them, including the urge to be angry with anyone who would not share these ideas. The whole process seemed so tiring. 

Now and again I saw libertarianism being mentioned and specifically Anarcho- Capitalism, and often the sentiment were simply how stupid the ideology was, if it wasn't pure evil even. This perplexed me. Sure, I understand that modern libertarianism is seen to be a rightist set of views and in this ideological climate any engaged leftist will disregard any ideology to the right without much thought, but still, "thin" libertarianism  is so simple - "Don't be a baddie, this is how a baddie is defined and let's try to avoid acting this way." Naive? Yes - but stupid to the borderline of evil? Wait a minute now, the range of the arguments why "baddies" should be defined along with the claim of libertarianism comes in all form of complexities and all of them aren't stupid. That itself is a rather stupid claim. 

And somehow it fully dawned on me. Libertarianism is so often confusing to people interested in politics because it actually isn't an ideology! The ideas of libertarianism on the ideology spectrum can go all over the place and they are often sort of Utopian in nature. The idea of there being no states and only corporation based structures for all the necessities of the society is nightmare fuel for many in our current society - and I need to stress: This isn't a proposed ideal for libertarians - or even ancaps - to strive for. We're not sure what we want society to look like in a concrete sense and there is absolutely no consensus among us what an ideal society would consists of. We are vary to the idea of the state, no one of us like the welfare state of the current era, but the ideas on how the state should look like and what it should be doing is still plentiful, in every libertarian subgroup. 

Why is this? Well, libertarianism isn't an ideology - it's an ethical system! An ethic system with one distinct claim at its basis: Never pull the lever! A classic ethical dilemma, the one with the trolley and the two tracks. On the track the trolley is currently heading there are five people being tied down and on a parallel track there is only one poor bastard in the same situation. The trolley's trajectory can be controlled by a lever and if one pulls it, the trolley will switch track and run over the single individual instead of the group of five. What would you do if you were close to the lever? Any utilitarian wouldn't hesitate too long before they pulled the lever. Sure, there might be circumstances where the one is simply too valuable in contrast to the many, but without further facts it's natural that it's better to save five people instead of only one. Libertarianism, however, says strictly no to this line of action. Even if all living organisms in a universe were to be saved, it's not worth killing off the single individual with an active choice as in the dilemma. It simply isn't. If you have to break eggs to make an omelette, find something better to eat. 

Why this is the case, why libertarianism finds this rather extreme position to be valid is outside of what I want to talk about here and I would refer you to mises.org if you're interested (or deeply concerned) and wishes to know more. I myself am not interested in trying to change people's minds on this topic anymore. I've realized that what kind of ethic that appeals to you isn't primarily a rational process, nay, instead we are using our rational faculties to justify what position which already has been decided for us and I don't care about the ethics of others anymore. Most ethics are fine all things considered. My point is simply that libertarianism is what it is because its ideological ideas stem from this ethic principle and there is no given guidelines what a "proper" libertarian society should look like, only a blue print on how to judge what kind of actions would be consistent with its principles and which set of actions that would go against it. 

This is why libertarians sound so alien to primarily a leftist mind set, because left ideologies are heavily influenced by an utilitarian ethic. Break as many eggs as you have to, as long it takes us to Utopia is a functioning principle on every ideology skewed to the left. If we can erase poverty, make everyone educated and give everyone a pony it simply doesn't matter how many people one has to kill or how many dreams we must shatter - it's going to be worth it. A worthy goal justifies virtually anything. This attitude is what informs people's views on taxes, the violent nature of the state or any form of aggression by people with good intentions. No one likes violence or constraints but since we are so steeped in an utilitarian mind set we don't really care about the state being rather ugly as long as our wonderful society with all its perks and benefits to us all stays afloat. Break some eggs, you know. 

And again, libertarianism goes full frontal with these views. No goal can justify unethical actions, no utilitarian gain makes it worth it to consciously break the NAP and the more "extreme" you get with this attitude - the more ancap you become. An ancap is simply someone that aims to follow this ethic to the very tee. They will never pull the lever. Minarchistic libertarians can justify it sometimes (freakin' commies) but ancaps simply never and yes, seen from an ideological perspective Anarcho- capitalism is simply weird. How could it ever be implemented in the real world? Why would you be so.. so.. unpractical!? but an ancap doesn't care too much of the real world. It's better to strive to live in a just and ethical fantasy than in a reality that is ethically vile, simply put. 

This doesn't mean libertarianism doesn't have utilitaristic ideas on how to better the society writ large and how stateless society could be said to function and function in a way that would benefit the larger classes in contrast to only the elites - but all those ideas often gets categorized as Austrian economics (AE) and even if the systems of AE is connected to libertarians due to so many of us being fans of the thing it's actually neutral to everything concerning ideology or ethic systems. It's just a set of rational theories on how things work in society and the suggestions coming forth on how one should act is simply advise on how to easier reach an optimum for the well-being of society. Libertarians might be into AE, but they don't have to be, it's two different things.

*

Anyway. I would still call myself a libertarian, distinctively an ancap, but I realize that my illness washed away every single longing to be ideological as a whole. Anarcho-capitalism is my ethics, one of the layers I use to shape my future mini - games in GoG, but I just don't care about the political side of it anymore. When ancaps go political they become weird, they become some neo- feudalists with monarchistic fetishes or they go all in hedonistic hippies in a way that is just bothersome. I don't care. I don't disagree necessarily and when it comes to the political left and right the hiatus made me understand fully that I can see from both those two perspectives with quite some ease. Yes, I'm biased to the right but I'm enough of a natural contrarian that I have gone against my bias (brought to me by parents and early religious surroundings) enough to say that even if I never can be free from it, I'm not blinded by it either. Left-mindedness and right dito is two ways to approach the world of humanity and neither is wrong a priori, they can just be applied in differently wise ways. From now on I choose to call any ideological views for either "leftoid" or "rightoid" viewpoints. I simply don't respect ideologues, it's a stupid game, it's a stupid play style. Supporting teams regardless what they'll do one can do in sports, in the real world one has to realize that every side has a counter, no action is either fully good or fully evil. One must try to be nuanced and forgiving when looking at the craziness of the world. Ideologues choose not to and I dismiss them entirely because of it. They have chosen not to be human in this aspect anymore but mere androids and well.. 

That's just sad. 

**

I have more to say about certain details of libertarianism and my own utilitarian ideas that don't contradict the ethics, but this isn't the place. Stay tuned and look out for the "Howtodo"-tag!