The Liberaltarian Mirage

Libertarians and conservatives have been allied quite awhile on common issues. Think tanks like Cato are quite chummy with folks at The Heritage Foundation. Ron Paul runs as a Republican. Fox News throws us a bone with letting Judge Napolitano have a show and make appearances on other shows. And conservatives at least pay lip service to cutting government even if they don't actually do it. For good or ill, libertarians have managed to work on common issues with conservatives and those within the GOP.

There are some who think a possible alliance can be made with progressives and people within the Democratic Party. These would be former Cato staffer Brink Lindsey or the guys over at Bleeding Heart Libertarians who pursue "free markets and social justice." Whether it is merely a PR change or major concessions on philosophy, these people propose an alliance between liberals and libertarians that is called "liberaltarian." This is nothing new. The libertarian hand has reached across the divide many times only to pull it back with teeth marks on it. To date, no significant alliance has ever worked between the two camps. Cato purged Lindsey, and I agree with that move. Matt Welch said the liberaltarian movement was "probably dead on arrival." I tend to agree.

The interesting question to me was a fundamental one. If libertarians and liberals both agree on social issues and being antiwar, why are liberals so utterly unapproachable in finding common cause on the matters where both agree? In other words, why are leftards such complete and utter dickheads to libertarians when playing nice would help them win?

To answer my question, I needed to answer the flip side to the question. Why are libertarians and conservatives seemingly joined at the hip? Why are conservatives willing to work with libertarians where liberals are not? My best answer is that there is not much difference between the two on a philosophical basis. Conservatives embrace the free market economics of libertarians and practically stole it. Both Friedman and Hayek feature prominently in conservative thought. Reagan was a big fan of Mises. So, why is there anything such as conservatism?

A conservative is essentially a libertarian who believes in God. I used to be a conservative. This was back when I used to be a Christian. When I became an atheist, my evolution towards libertarianism was inevitable. I've always believed in free markets. But I used to believe that the government provided an important moral framework and spur to individual virtue. Without government to tell you that something is wrong, you would just do whatever the fuck you wanted. The ensuing chaos would result in anarchy and the need for an authoritarian to come in and set shit straight. Government was an agency of God's common grace to keep things from falling apart. Liberty is merely a consequence of good order. Or as the Federalist Papers put it, "There is no liberty without self-government." I now realize this to be an error as people repeatedly demonstrate the virtue lacking in our public leaders and law enforcement. Order is a consequence of liberty.

The division between libertarians and conservatives is essentially a philosophical one. On the basis of philosophy, any division is actually minor since they are simply different ideas. In the realm of ideas, it is easy to go along on matters of agreement and save disagreements for other times. But what about the division between liberals and libertarians?

The temptation is to think that the divide between liberals and libertarians is also philosophical, but this isn't true. Granted, there are philosophical differences, but this does not explain the reluctance of liberals to side with libertarians on legalizing drugs or ending the war. It also does not explain how they can give their own president a pass on these issues when he has shown himself to be ultraconservative in these areas and to be a virtual carbon copy of the previous Republican administration. This is not a difference in ideas. It is a difference in psychology.

I interact with a lot of leftards on Facebook and in the real world. They are the most intellectually disingenuous people you will ever encounter. They are narcissistic, vain, petty, and stupid. I think Rush Limbaugh is a fat bag of hot air, but I can have a more reasonable conversation with him than I could with any leftard. This is because that convo with Rush would be a philosophical one. I would argue that drugs should be legalized, and he would argue otherwise. Then, he would offer me a Scotch and a cigar, and I would decline because I don't smoke or drink.

The leftard divide with libertarians is not a philosophical divide but a psychological divide. Conservatives and libertarians come to their positions as the result of thought and reflection. Liberals come to their positions as the result of their feelings. They feel the way they do and no cool detached reasoning will ever change them. This shitheadedness extends so far that they can't even make an alliance with those promoting the very things they claim to believe in.

The leftard worldview is identical to that of the younger sibling. Older siblings tend to reflect a more conservative outlook in their behavior as they often must delay gratification or assist in being a parent to the younger siblings. I don't know if birth order is actually reflected in later political affiliation, and that would be an interesting study. But looking at the way siblings behave, you can see that younger siblings have an almost pathological obsession with fairness even if they are actually spoiled with benefits in relation to their older siblings. Even if they were to benefit more from an unequal distribution than an equal distribution, they want the equal distribution. They would rather have everyone be equally poor than unequally rich. It is madness, but this is the way they think.

I tend to be individualistic, so I hardly pay any attention to other people in relation to myself. I enjoy talking to a wide variety of people, and I take an intense interest in them. But this interest is much the same as an entomologist's interest in maggots. I am detached from people in a way that I don't either look up or down on others. The result is that I am irreverent to authority and status while befriending outcasts, nerds, losers, or what have you. I can ride in another man's BMW and feel not one single desire to own one myself. As such, I always take the deal that is best for me as an individual without regard to how it may improve someone else's lot. This is why the success of others does not provoke envy in me. I am too self-absorbed to care.

Life isn't fair. I'm not sure when this insight came to me, but I was definitely young when it happened. I lost two cousins in a plane crash when I was six or seven, and I remember that I got my cousin Michael's Huffy BMX bike. The significance of the bike was that I never rode it without thinking about him. The tragedy of his death was unfair, and I had benefitted in some way by getting the bike. I did not feel guilty about this because I did not cause that tragedy. But it made me mindful that people die, and I will die, too. Many of the things that happen to us both good or bad are often undeserved. As a consequence, I learned not to worry about what was fair or unfair. Later on, I got a dirtbike for Christmas, and I had a friend at school who was so eaten up with envy that he begged his dad to buy one for him, too. That was the first time I saw the stupidity in it all. The reason was because I thought that guy was cool as fuck because he could draw. I had admiration for him, and he had envy for me. But I thought he was way cooler than me.

I would like to say this is just childish crap, but adults carry on exactly as children do. Their eyes are always on others and what they have. I like to look at exquisite architecture and the design of fancy cars. I enjoy them aesthetically, but I recognize that others only see shit they want and can't afford. That has to be one suck ass way to go through life always envying and resenting the good fortune of others. This is the epitome of the leftard mindset.

Libertarians and conservatives are quite fine with an unequal distribution of wealth. This is also why they are easy to make alliances with because they are selfish, greedy, or virtuous enough to see the benefit in the alliance for themselves. Leftards are not like this. They cannot make an alliance without considering how it may benefit someone else and how unfair that is. This is why there can never be a liberaltarian alliance. It may benefit libertarians in some way, and leftards can't have this.

When George W. Bush was in office, the antiwar left was very vocal. Then, that voice disappeared when Obama took office and has continued the same wars and expanded them into new countries. This does not matter to the leftard because Obama is one of them. This shows that their unwillingness to make alliances is not because of uncompromising philosophical integrity. In fact, you will find that leftards are one hypocritical bunch. Even on social issues like legalizing marijuana or gay marriage, they are quite hypocritical considering that Obama has stymied both with his policies.

The truth is that leftards really could give a shit about the social issues they should agree with libertarians on. The reason they make a big deal about them at all is for no greater purpose than to antagonize social conservatives. Basically, if conservatives are against it, leftards are for it. This is why leftards would howl if there were mandatory HIV testing for gays but would be quite fine with smokers being tested for nicotine. If that seems schizophrenic, it is because they are purely in opposition to conservatives. For myself, I think both are bad ideas, but leftards will accuse me of being anti-gay anyway because they can't deal with libertarians.

The fact that some people get rich while others don't looms entirely in the thoughts and mindset of the leftard. This is fundamentally unfair, and they hate anyone who does not see this unfairness. Conversely, they will love anyone who sees this unfairness even if they do nothing about it or act contrary to it. Anything that will serve to demonize the rich becomes fodder for them to use. Every fact is turned in such a way that conservatives and free market types come out as the loser. It could be environmentalism, imaginary threats to public health, perceived intolerance of minorities, etc. If you doubt this, look no further than the sexist remarks leftards toss at women like Palin or Bachmann. All black Republicans become racists and called "Uncle Tom." If the Republican Party came out for marijuana legalization tomorrow, leftards would say that the Republicans wanted to push an unsafe product on the marketplace for the sake of corporate profits.

The liberaltarian mirage is that libertarians can make an alliance with the Left on social issues and foreign policy. The reality is that this alliance can never be had because the Left doesn't give a damn about these things. They never did. These issues are merely convenient tools to demonstrate that the fundamental capitalist system is unfair. Every ill among humanity is caused by the unequal distribution of wealth. Leftards have no compassion. They are not concerned with the welfare of others. They are concerned with their own welfare. This is not a vice, but it becomes one when you become a sniveling whiner complaining about how unfair it all is. As long as some rich guy takes it in the shorts, social justice will be achieved.

The lack of compassion among leftards is well documented. They conveniently forget the many human rights abuses of Stalin and Mao. They even did this while they were happening. Democrats have a lower record of charitable giving than Republicans. And rich leftards like Michael Moore and Bono seem to have no problem enjoying their wealth while condemning the greed of others.

There is no philosophy, coherence, or compassion to the leftard mindset. It is simple envy. This staggers the mind, but there it is. These are not people who came to a conclusion after an appraisal of the facts. These are people who had a conclusion and use any fact true or otherwise in the support of that conclusion. Life should be fair even if that fairness is uniform misery. And there can be no alliance with libertarians because libertarians do not share the fundamental envy that unites all leftards. If the Republican Party came out for drug legalization tomorrow, leftards would say that they wanted to push an unsafe product on the marketplace for the sake of corporate profits. For the leftard, there are only two choices. You can either be on the side of Greed, or you can be on the side of Envy. Libertarians will always be on the side of greed to the leftard, and this is why no alliance between the two will ever occur. Matt Welch is right. The liberaltarian alliance is DOA.

---
NOTES

1. The Liberaltarian Jackalope

2. A Liberaltarian Purge?

3. Liberaltarians by Brink Lindsey

4. The Left's Race-Baiting of Herman Cain

5. Dataset of the Day: Who is more Generous? Republicans or Democrats?

Posted in: