Over the past several years I had become increasingly disillusioned by a contradiction I saw among a great many libertarians. While they espoused an ideology that attacked coercion against peaceful people as a basic, perhaps most basic, element in their thinking about society, their actions in practice were quite different.
The first time I noticed this was when I attended a conference for young people interested in free market. There several of the participants initially argued they thought voluntary slavery, in the sense that the slave sold himself or herself into slavery, was perfectly OK. The lecturer, the economist Israel Kirzner, informed them of some of the many reasons why this was unacceptable. I was bothered by the need for him to rebut a position no truly decent person would hold. Something was morally lacking in these people.
Later, when I was an early graduate student at Berkeley, I was still attracted to the label ‘libertarian’ though I was having theoretical problems developing the ideology’s insights more rigorously. Even so, I strongly believed then, as I do now, that peaceful people should not be aggressed against, PERIOD.
Later when Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick argued voluntary slavery was legitimate, I was bothered even more. But at the time some leading libertarians powerfully rebutted him. (I am NOT impressed with the quality of many Harvard professors…). Since then, other than a drunk Arkansas Republican, EVERY defense of slavery I have ever encountered came from people calling themselves libertarians.
Leonard Liggio, a leading libertarian, introduced me to a bright undergraduate who was attracted to libertarian ideology. In a brief conversation, I mentioned I was also investigating coercion in employment as well as in government. The student, an arrogant little prick, said there was no such thing since employees entered into it voluntarily.
In subsequent years my disagreement with libertarian ideology led me to abandon the term in any sense, (I now call myself a liberal) but I thought, wrong as they were on important issues, libertarians would be great allies regarding civil liberties.
The Trump phenomena proved me wrong. Many (by no means all) ‘libertarians’ preferred Trump over Harris.
I came to the conclusion there were two kinds of libertarians. First, some sincerely rejected what they considered to be coercion against peaceful people. That was my own background. Their weakness, a weakness I once shared, was their inadequate understanding of what constituted coercion. Their motivation was honorable, the application flawed.
But there was a second kind typified by many attracted to Ayn Rand. They rejected the right of anyone to tell them what to do, but had little concern with others being coerced, and often were personally authoritarian themselves, hence their positions on employees and slavery.
Libertarianism was an ideology behind which they could justify their lack of concern with others except as means to their ends, wrapping their authoritarianism in the garb of ‘freedom.’ Since Trump exemplified the real thing, they were attracted.
DIFFERENT LABEL – SAME HYPOCRISY
I am seeing the same thing among ‘conservatives.’ For decades conservatives never stopped talking about states’ rights, the constitution, traditional values, the rule of law, and limited government. It was almost a mantra with them. Now that Trump is president most calling themselves conservatives support him. They are quiet as mice when
1. States’ rights are challenged, as in California and control over its water, and ‘conservatives’ say nothing. Other ‘conservatives’ quickly jettisoned talk of state’ rights with talks of a national law against women’s control over their bodies. More of this crap to come for sure.
2. The constitution is violated as in Trump unilaterally abolishing the 14th amendment regarding birthright citizenship. Again, silence.
3. The president and many of his top appointees are clearly moral degenerates. In Trump’s case, fraud, rape, endless lies, contempt for marriage values, to name a few of the best proven. Many of his appointees, such as Pete Hegseth, are no better. Traditional values are to be pissed on by people who endlessly accused others of immorality. Hypocrisy for them is a way of life.
4. The rule of law is negated when pardons are given out to violent insurrectionists because they supported a would-be dictator and Inspectors General are unlawfully dismissed because they do not answer to him. This is amoral.
5. The president and his henchmen threaten any member of his own party with a primary challenge if they ever oppose any of his lawless actions. He also threatens the constitutional guarantee of a free press. But for these ‘conservatives’ liberty and freedom count only when attacking liberals and ‘the left.’
A clear majority of ‘conservatives’ clearly do not give a damn about the values to which they long gave endless lip service. They are intellectual frauds, their fine words only serving to obscure their real values, which are based on dominating anyone different from them, just for the pleasure of dominating.
As with libertarians, some genuine conservatives exist, and they are usually known as “Never-Trumpers.” But the vast majority appear to me to be nothing but ideological frauds.
I have long thought ideas mattered. In many exchanges I have asked them to back up their charges with examples and address the seeming violation of their long stated principles by Trump and his ilk. I get nothing in return beyond vague generalities. I have concluded that, for most on the right, including some I have known for a long time, ideas serve only as pretty pasties covering up endless intellectual and moral rot.