Right-wing libertarianism has always been a deeply authoritarian political philosophy.

[pampango]

It claims to value liberty in some general and all-encompassing sense above all other principles, but the particular types of freedom libertarianism seeks to defend and extend are always, tacitly and implicitly, forms of liberty for the few at the expense of the many. Thus libertarianism stands for the unfreedom of the majority.

The most important thing to grasp about libertarian thinking, however, is that its particular, very narrow, understanding of liberty is an indication of its class basis. Liberty is defined almost exclusively in terms of private property rights. When approaching issues such as progressive taxation, trade unions, welfare and economic regulation the libertarian will present all of these things as threats to individual liberty. But whose liberty in particular do these things plausibly threaten? All of these measures, in fact, can be regarded precisely in terms of the expansion of freedom – for employees, the poor, the unemployed and so on.

But it's not merely class hierarchy that libertarianism implicitly defends – it's also committed to other forms of domination. Take "race" for example. Libertarian thought has been marked by a distinctly racist dimension from its very beginning. It is entirely in keeping with libertarian tradition, then, that Ukip is radically hostile to immigration and to "multiculturalism" (a familiar dog-whistle term for the racist right).

Ukip is also committed, of course, to the defence of uncompromising heterosexism. ... In both cases – immigration and gay rights – Ukip is seeking to tap into an aggrieved sense of rightful superiority on the part of relatively privileged groups and to bolster it through various forms of discrimination against inferior others.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/dec/19/ukip-conservatives

The author is writing about the right-wing, anti-EU UK Independence Party, but the right wing libertarian antipathy towards gays and immigrants reveals their authoritarian streak which applies to much of our republican base also.

[freshwest]

1. An important expansion on George Monbiot's piece:

How Freedom Became Tyranny
December 19, 2011

Rightwing libertarians have turned “freedom” into an excuse for greed and exploitation.

By George Monbiot, published in the Guardian 20th December 2011

Freedom: who could object? Yet this word is now used to justify a thousand forms of exploitation. Throughout the rightwing press and blogosphere, among thinktanks and governments, the word excuses every assault on the lives of the poor, every form of inequality and intrusion to which the 1% subject us. How did libertarianism, once a noble impulse, become synonymous with injustice?

In the name of freedom – freedom from regulation – the banks were permitted to wreck the economy. In the name of freedom, taxes for the super-rich are cut. In the name of freedom, companies lobby to drop the minimum wage and raise working hours. In the same cause, US insurers lobby Congress to thwart effective public healthcare; the government rips up our planning laws(1); big business trashes the biosphere. This is the freedom of the powerful to exploit the weak, the rich to exploit the poor.

Right-wing libertarianism recognises few legitimate constraints on the power to act, regardless of the impact on the lives of others. In the UK it is forcefully promoted by groups like the TaxPayers’ Alliance, the Adam Smith Institute, the Institute of Economic Affairs and Policy Exchange(2). Their conception of freedom looks to me like nothing but a justification for greed.

So why have we been been so slow to challenge this concept of liberty? I believe that one of the reasons is as follows. The great political conflict of our age – between neocons and the millionaires and corporations they support on one side and social justice campaigners and environmentalists on the other – has been mischaracterised as a clash between negative and positive freedoms...

Check the rest at:

http://www.monbiot.com/2011/12/19/how-freedom-became-tyranny/

(emboldening mine)

[standingtall]

2. Wing nuts may call it libertarianism

but I called it fascism, because that's exactly what it is.

[ellisonz]

3. +1

And Ron Paul is its poster boy

[white_wolf]

4. Not really. The fascists would likely kill or lock up libertarians...

but not because the libertarians believe in liberty or freedom. Most of them are happy to give that away as long as their magical free market is in place, but that's the problem. Fascists are indeed corporatists, as Mussolini said, but their ultimate ideal is a strong state capable of defending and bring prosperity to it's people, at the expense of all other peoples. The problem is that fascists are smart enough to realize that lazzie-faire capitalism is a joke. They realize a pure free market is harmful to the state so they will place some restrictions on corporations to ensure maximum efficiency for the state.

Remember Fascism once marketed itself as the so called "Third Way" between socialism and capitalism. It's an outright lie of course, because in the end it does protect private property and capitalism. I think it was Lenin who said that "Fascism is the iron loop around the collapsing barrel of capitalism." In this respect he's right. Fascism emerges when there is a danger of capitalism failing, it's the ultimate reactionary movement, but it's kind of a last resort since capitalists do have to give up some of their power to the state in order to survive. Look at Greece, if things continue on their present course and a strong socialist movement emerges there I wouldn't be surprised if the Golden Dawn or another fascist group is given power in order to maintain order.

[pampango]

6. 'Fascists are indeed corporatists'...with the "ultimate ideal is a strong state capable of defending

and bring prosperity to it's people, at the expense of all other peoples." &quot F)ascists are smart enough to realize that lazzie-faire capitalism is a joke. They realize a pure free market is harmful to the state so they will place some restrictions on corporations to ensure maximum efficiency for the state."

Good insight into the relationship between fascists and libertarians. Thanks.

[standingtall]

7. Thanks, but still not convinced they are not fascist.

However libertarians do believe in freedom. They believe in more freedom for the wealthy, and less for everyone else. Which is why I believe it to be economic fascism in it's purest form. Few or no regulations= A partnership between Government and corporations,Something so called libertarians claim to be against, but I tell you they in fact they desire it. Corporations are powerful, and they more the government lets them get away with the more powerful they become.

[white_wolf]

8. Libertarians are utter idiots and dangerous, but I don't think they are fascists.

Libertarians are absolutists in their commitment to the free market so much so that some don't even think the government should exist at all and places prime importance on the individual. That is not fascism. Fascism requires a powerful state in order to function. Fascism's relationship to the individual is a bit of a paradox. It glorifies the ideal of a heroic individual, but at the same time the State is recognized as supreme. Whereas libertarians would oppose any form of a social safety net fascists support some kind, because they realize that a starving, sick, impoverished population will weaken the state. Where a libertarian would oppose all unions and openly support the capitalist class, fascists are less open. In opposition to socialism doctrine of class struggle, fascism preaches class collaboration. Everyone has a role to play in society. It's almost like the medieval world view. Everyone has their assigned role in society and you shouldn't question that role. The state acts as the arbiter of disputes between labor and capital, but because capital is more powerful and more beneficial to the state, the state will side with the capitalists.

Honestly, I think the neo-cons are much closer to fascists than the libertarians. The libertarians preach a different breed of tyranny than the fascists, but both ultimately suck.

[tama]

10. I haven't yet met

a RW libertarian who would be ready to give up Night Guard state, ie. state violence to protect egoistic capitalistic property from democracy and common good.

Suppose there are two islands, capitalist libertarian and anarchist social libertarian. The capitalists can't stop working people moving to anarchist island without mechanisms of violence, from servitude to capitalists to real freedom, and if they don't, they'll have to produce their own food and everything else without their working class slaves and end up living like the rest of people.

[Major Nikon]

12. I call it looneytarianism

[CheapShotArtist]

5. I always knew that Libertarians in general are full of shit.

Ron Paul and his asshole friends have successfully twisted what freedom and liberty truly mean. They say that it infringes on "individual freedom" to do things like taxing the rich higher in order to fund our safety net programs, but what about the freedom of the people who those programs are designed to help? With no safety net, working class Americans have less freedom to buy things that they want and need. And they also have no problems with what they call "freedom-based discrimination", where businesses can deny service to you for whatever stupid reason.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
But IMO that sounds pretty similar to segregation prior to the CR movement. Their stance on this disrespects the freedom of customers to frequent any business that they want.
Furthermore, where were the Libertarians when all those states enacted those voter suppression laws? Republican governors were trying to make it more inconvenient for low-income people to exercise our most basic Constitutional right. I understand you shouldn't really expect someone else to do your homework for you, but really...if Libertarians were true to their principles, then why haven't they sided with the Left on this issue where people's rights are being taken away? There hasn't been a peep from them.

[davidn3600]

9. I dont think they are racist or favor segregation, they just dont care about it

I think libertarians just simply ignore all that and don't consider it a problem the government should have to deal with. They believe if the government tries to step in that it's Big Brother trying to tell everyone how to think. I believe that's how they look at it. They think if much of the poor happens to be minorities, than that's just how it is and it's a social problem, not a political one.

In general, conservatives and libertarians don't consider equality (racial, gender, economics) as a necessity for society to achieve freedom and liberty. They believe every society will always have inequality. Unlike liberals who generally believe equality is necessary.

[Demo_Chris]

11. Respectfully, words like Libertarian, Fascism, and what not, have actual meanings.

We might disagree with Libertarian beliefs, we might abhor the eventual inevitable outcomes, but it is not tyranny in any traditional definition of the word. The accumulation of power and wealth in too few hands might ultimately result in a transition from libertarianism and into government tyranny, but this can be said of any political system.

Nor, in response to another poster, is Libertarianism even close to fascism. It could evolve into Fascism, but then any system can -- including socialism (and quite easily).

In any case, this article is silly.

In a nutshell Libertarians believe that their property (wages, wealth, whatever) are theirs and theirs alone, and that they owe little or no obligation to the society that made this accumulation possible (beyond, obviously, continuation of the freedoms they enjoy). Further, they object to any government intervention that might be seen as a threat to anyone's individual liberty. Obviously, most of us here do not support the Libertarian party, but their philosophy (while flawed) at least has logical internal consistency. Something modern Republicans cannot claim.

Anyway...

The authors of this article are claiming that because Libertarians oppose the transfer of their wealth or time to others (or the imposition of regulations, or whatever), that in so doing Libertarians are somehow oppressing these others. This is, of course, absurd. To better understand why, let's consider an imaginary example:

Scenario Background: Imagine you are a successful junk jewelry vendor at a flea market and you happen to be a Libertarian. You set up every weekend, and thanks to your hard work (and a whole bunch of other factors) you earn an average of a thousand dollars a week. You even have repeat customers who return to you time and again because they love your wonderful service. One day the authors of this article show up at the flea market also wishing to sell junk jewelry. Since you are a Libertarian you say hello and wish them the best of luck.

Being new to the trade, they don't have your inventory or customer base, they don't have the great location that you waited years to get, their display looks like crap, and their business tanks. Where you sell your normal thousand dollars worth of jewelry, they sold fifty.

The authors of this article, our new flea market vendors, go to you and complain. It's not fair, they say. You have more and better stuff, you have that great location, you have more money to make your displays look fantastic, and you have all the customers. They claim that you owe them a fair shot, you need to give them some of your jewelry, a list of some of your customers, and that great location. Just to be fair.

When you say fuck off, and you would, they then write an article claiming that you are oppressing them. But like I said, that's ridiculous. You're a libertarian, you don't oppress anyone.

Now if you were a Republican (or a Corporatist / Fascist / Other) your response would be different. When they first showed up at the market you would go immediately to the owner to complain. You would remind him that you had been there for years, that you bring in all kinds of regular customers to his show, and that if he doesn't kick them out you will not return. You would use your position and status with the management (government) to restrict and eliminate any competition. If you did that your competition would have grounds for a genuine complaint that you are oppressing them -- but then you wouldn't be a Libertarian.

Now all of this is just an example, but that's okay because there is NOTHING Libertarian about our government or the GOP. Nor will there ever be. Libertarian beliefs might function on a personal level or at a flea market, though this is debatable, but they cannot work for societies -- they are at best a transitional stage on the path to (likely) something far worse.

A few other points:

Libertarians are NOT opposed to unions or collective bargaining. They are opposed to mandatory union membership. Big difference.
Libertarians are NOT opposed to immigration. They are in favor of open borders and immediate blanket amnesty.
Libertarians are NOT opposed to gay marriage. They are the strongest supporters of gay rights (and all equal rights) of any US party.
Libertarians are NOT opposed to abortion. Libertarians are pretty much not opposed to anything except you telling them what to do or believe.

Which is not to say that I believe that Libertarian government would be a good alternative to Progressive government. I do not. But I have one advatage over the authors of this article: I actually know what Libertarians believe, and my disagreements with them are based on this rather than falsehoods.

[JaneyVee]

14. You're thinking of Liberal Libertarians. RW Libertarians are Anarcho-capitalists.

And are very much against all those things you suggest they are NOT against. For example: You say they are NOT against gay marriage, yet RW Libertarians would be FOR allowing corporations to discriminate against hiring gays because they are against any Govt laws that could make such discrimination illegal. Therefore, RW libertarians aren't on the side of liberty.

[ThoughtCriminal]

13. It goes back to slavery

The "freedom" to own slaves.

Now it is the the freedom of the super rich, to maim, poison, spy on, and fire "their" peasants for any thought crime.