Anti-Authoritarian is not Libertarian

[ygolo]

	Anti-Authoritarian	Libertarian
Scope	Opposes all forms of unjust power	Focuses on limiting government and promoting free markets
Economics	Includes a mix of economic views, often anti-capitalist	Favors free-market capitalism
Political Spectrum	Spans left and right	Leans right economically, but supports social freedoms
Origins	Comes from anti-hierarchy movements	Stems from classical liberalism
View on Hierarchy	Rejects unjust hierarchies	May accept hierarchies from free markets

Anti-Authoritarianism: I am not saying I subscribe to it, but I sympathize with it.

The Anti-Authoritarian movement does not have a lot of backing currently; I think many with those leanings end up being Libertarian, losing their voice.

I should also mention being Anti-Authoritarian is not being Anti-Authority. Authority that is just and earned is different from unjust or unearned power.

I realize these are "isms". But unfortunately, political movements often are. That's one reason I can't subscribe to Anti-Authoritarianism. The "ism" sneaks in too much.

 

[ceecee]

Libertarians may have met those criteria at one time. Now they are just Republicans, frequently far right Republicans, that want legal weed and no age of consent laws and are just as oppressive as any form of authoritarianism out there.

I'm curious why you would not subscribe to anti-authoritarianism? Other than the unrealistic anti-capitalist view, I don't see anything wrong with a mixed economy, market socialism or a Nordic model. Americans view the economy as largely negative -this is a 100% capitalist, neoliberal country working as it should - I would think more people would welcome something else as it doesn't work for the majority.

1. Views of the nation’s economy

Fewer than a quarter of Americans (23%) currently rate the country’s economic conditions as excellent or good, while 36% say they are poor.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[SensEye]

The big issue is the term 'unjust power'. That's very subjective and really means any power you don't agree with is unjust. So that's never going to work.

Libertarianism, in theory, attempts to avoid this problem by setting some very limited scope on any authorities power. In a sense, Libertarianism, pre supposes all authority is somewhat unjust and therefor attempts to minimize it.

Neither work in practice though. There is a need for collective goods and services in a large population, along with oversight, and therefor a fairly powerful 'state' is required to manage and control (and tax) to operate and fund these services. So there has to be some sort of authority that is pretty large in scope. Unfortunately, that beast tends to want to grow itself.

Democracy is the best system that we have come up with to deal with the situation. It's not perfect, but everything else has proven disastrous. Although 'everything else' has pretty much been comprised of dictatorships and monarchies.

 

[ygolo]

@ceecee I mainly don't subscribe to Anti-Authoritarianism for similar reasons for not subscring any other big concept that packages a world view for people. I am largely sympathetic to most of the view points of people who are anti-authoritarian--including having to acknowledge failures in markets in different aspects of life-especially the conditions that lead to opression, like human trafficking.

Some packed world view includes connecting anti-authoritarianism to Justice.

@SensEye is correct IMO in pointing out that "just power" is subjective. It packs a lot of worldview. I'd need to think more about it to unpack it. The subjectivity, for me, isn't a breaking issue, however.

Justice is a concept that exists in society (we have courts). We are people. Our concepts about ourselves will have elements of subjectivity.

Libertarianism (even if you take the idealised form rather than it's modern co-opted one), is simply problematic. To think that limited government and laissez faire markets solve every coordination problem is a little like thinking all the world is made of nails because you only have a hammer.

Any system that starts out by trying to think ahead of time about all problems is kinda doomed to failure.

Edit: Also, a bias against heirachy as a motivation doesn't fully sit right with me. But I get the impulse.

 

[SensEye]

Libertarianism (even if you take the idealised form rather than it's modern co-opted one), is simply problematic. To think that limited government and laissez faire markets solve every coordination problem is a little like thinking all the world is made of nails because you only have a hammer.

I agree and said as much. There has to be some sort of authority (or state as I referred to it). It's just that anti-authoritarianism doesn't add much to the discussion. If you don't like authority, you should in theory be either a libertarian or some sort of anarchist (another bankrupt philosophy IMO). Your only option is pro democracy. How else to determine just vs unjust authority other than the will of the majority of the people?

Problems arise when the authority ceases to listen to the will of the people and oppresses them. Of course, that is pretty clear signal of unjust authority. This doesn't mean leadership doesn't have to sometimes make unpopular decisions. Sometimes what is good for you is not what is comfortable for you.

Of course, the people aren't that well informed or collectively intelligent when it comes to governance. So all sorts of unsound (which is not necessarily unjust but often turns out so) authority can be justly granted power. However, as long as that authority cedes power when demanded, things seem to work out OK.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I am sympathetic to anti-authoritarianism. My main problem with it is that people take it too far and end up being opposed to all forms of organization and leadership. I don't believe a movement can be effective without those things. This makes it impossible for the movement to gain traction, and therefore makes it prone to being co-opted by politicians who do not really believe in anti-authoritarianism.

 

[ygolo]

I agree and said as much. There has to be some sort of authority (or state as I referred to it). It's just that anti-authoritarianism doesn't add much to the discussion. If you don't like authority, you should in theory be either a libertarian or some sort of anarchist (another bankrupt philosophy IMO). Your only option is pro democracy. How else to determine just vs unjust authority other than the will of the majority of the people?

Problems arise when the authority ceases to listen to the will of the people and oppresses them. Of course, that is pretty clear signal of unjust authority. This doesn't mean leadership doesn't have to sometimes make unpopular decisions. Sometimes what is good for you is not what is comfortable for you.

Of course, the people aren't that well informed or collectively intelligent when it comes to governance. So all sorts of unsound (which is not necessarily unjust but often turns out so) authority can be justly granted power. However, as long as that authority cedes power when demanded, things seem to work out OK.

How else to determine just vs unjust authority other than the will of the majority of the people?

There are ways to do this that are different from others. Generally, rank choice voting is interesting.

But different decisions can have different mechanics.
More specifically:
When two people are deciding if they want to get married, I see no reason for the majority to weigh in.

If a woman is deciding whether or not to have a child, I see no reason for the majority to weigh in.

For general governance:
Being informed and thoughtful is important. But people are busy. There'll be issues some people care about a lot more than others.

So representatives you trust make sense.

I worry that the representation process is hijacked by monied interests.

I also worry about populations voting for the removal of rights from individuals who might be in the minority.

The combination of the two issues can lead to authoritarianism that looks like democracy. Despots have come to power in banana republics.

 

[The Cat]

It's not technically hijacking if you pay for it. It's a transaction. Technically I suppose it would be the representation process is being pimped out to moneyed interests.

 

[SensEye]

@ygolo - some of your criticisms are valid. The question is what to do about them? I think certain rights need to be enshrined in a constitution like document that is very had to change to prevent FOMO whims impacting important policy. And some of them are of course, but some are not. And by design, things that were omitted many decades ago are hard to get in there now.

I am always surprised that elections often turn on social issues like abortion/gay marriage as these issues only directly effect the individuals involved. So, for example, people who are opposed to abortion should never personally have one. And straight people should not marry same sex partners unless they are so inclined for financial gain. But what people do that has zero impact on me has zero importance to me. I've very libertarian about that (i.e. the state should simply not legislate over these issues).

So while I have an opinion on all these things I would probably not make a voting decision on these issues. That can prove problematic when zero of the candidates/parties align with my views on a wide range of topics. Pick the best of a bad lot in that case.

 

[ceecee]

How else to determine just vs unjust authority other than the will of the majority of the people?

There are ways to do this that are different from others. Generally, rank choice voting is interesting.

But different decisions can have different mechanics.
More specifically:
When two people are deciding if they want to get married, I see no reason for the majority to weigh in.

If a woman is deciding whether or not to have a child, I see no reason for the majority to weigh in.

For general governance:
Being informed and thoughtful is important. But people are busy. There'll be issues some people care about a lot more than others.

So representatives you trust make sense.

I worry that the representation process is hijacked by monied interests.

I also worry about populations voting for the removal of rights from individuals who might be in the minority.

The combination of the two issues can lead to authoritarianism that looks like democracy. Despots have come to power in banana republics.

By these definitions we are already there. I would consider Trump a despot and most in the GOP to be hijacked by monied interests and VERY into removing rights from individuals that aren't like them. Dems are also hijacked by monied interests but I have yet to see Dems proposing bills to remove rights from anyone. Until I see that, they're going to get my vote.

 

[ygolo]

By these definitions we are already there. I would consider Trump a despot and most in the GOP to be hijacked by monied interests and VERY into removing rights from individuals that aren't like them. Dems are also hijacked by monied interests but I have yet to see Dems proposing bills to remove rights from anyone. Until I see that, they're going to get my vote.

A California Senate bill borders on removing the right to think (using too-powerful computational aids). They nerfed it after a lot of push-back, but it still continues in that vein of regulation—regulating equations(models) rather than systems(applications).

Edit: I have been posting about it a lot in this thread:

Supporting Little Tech is the Practical Way to Deal with Big Tech

I am going to keep beating this drum until people change their minds about SB 1047. I realize this little corner of the internet has limited reach. But I need people to stop appealing to authority regarding whether or not it would have a chilling effect. As someone seriously contemplating...

www.typologycentral.com

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

True libertarianism doesn't really exist in the USA, at least not as a significant movement.

Anarchocapitalism is oxymoronic. And also, lol at so-called libertarians that support Trumpism. Idiots unironically flying don't tread on me and blue lives matter flags side-by-side. They're mutually exclusive worldviews. It works out in these people's minds because I guess they somehow see themselves as part of a special class less likely to be trampled under the police state. But it will come for them, eventually.

 

[ygolo]

@ygolo - some of your criticisms are valid. The question is what to do about them? I think certain rights need to be enshrined in a constitution like document that is very had to change to prevent FOMO whims impacting important policy. And some of them are of course, but some are not. And by design, things that were omitted many decades ago are hard to get in there now.

I am always surprised that elections often turn on social issues like abortion/gay marriage as these issues only directly effect the individuals involved. So, for example, people who are opposed to abortion should never personally have one. And straight people should not marry same sex partners unless they are so inclined for financial gain. But what people do that has zero impact on me has zero importance to me. I've very libertarian about that (i.e. the state should simply not legislate over these issues).

So while I have an opinion on all these things I would probably not make a voting decision on these issues. That can prove problematic when zero of the candidates/parties align with my views on a wide range of topics. Pick the best of a bad lot in that case.

I have no answers. Right now, I'll likely still vote Democrat nationally (president and congress), but Republican locally (State Senate and State Assembly).

 

[The Cat]

True libertarianism doesn't really exist in the USA, at least not as a significant movement.

Anarchocapitalism is oxymoronic. And also, lol at so-called libertarians that support Trumpism. Idiots unironically flying don't tread on me and blue lives matter flags side-by-side. They're mutually exclusive worldviews. It works out in these people's minds because I guess they somehow see themselves as part of a special class less likely to be trampled under the police state. But it will come for them, eventually.

Ron Swanson and the inability to understand satire led to a lot of "Libertarians" in USA.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I would like to see Geolibertarianism as a political movement in the USA. I'm kind of dumb about political science and economics and therefore wouldn't be able to explain its tenets well, but I find it the most appealing of any political ideology I've researched. All I can really say is I think it espouses the best aspects of both capitalism and communism whilst discarding the worst aspects of either.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I would like to see Geolibertarianism as a political movement in the USA. I'm kind of dumb about political science and economics and therefore wouldn't be able to explain its tenets well, but I find it the most appealing of any political ideology I've researched. All I can really say is I think it espouses the best aspects of both capitalism and communism whilst discarding the worst aspects of either.

I think you've explained it before but I've forgotten what you've said. I just keep thinking of gigantic amethyst crystals.

 

[ygolo]

I would like to see Geolibertarianism as a political movement in the USA. I'm kind of dumb about political science and economics and therefore wouldn't be able to explain its tenets well, but I find it the most appealing of any political ideology I've researched. All I can really say is I think it espouses the best aspects of both capitalism and communism whilst discarding the worst aspects of either.

The land value tax, even moving partially to it, seems to always work wonders in places that try it.

 

[Haight]

How else to determine just vs unjust authority other than the will of the majority of the people?

Because the people can be wrong. For many reasons.

Two words as an example: Nazi Germany.

 

[Lark]

Libertarianism, at least US-UK libertarianism or "free market" libertarianism, is just privatization, they dont mind how much tyranny or authoritarianism there is so long as its private.

So if the Nazi project had been perpetuated by a lot of billionaires using money for leverage instead of government, well, they might have complained about it, mildly, but largely they wouldnt have had any issue with it.

For libertarianism things like sovereignty, whether its "of the people" or "of the individual" are not inviolable but instead purchaseable, everything is for sale, including "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

"Anti-authoritarianism", is too broad a label for my liking, it is considered synomynous with a sort of permissive, enfeebled, liberalism, which sanctions the most extraordinary neglect so long as its "freely choosen" or "voluntary" and drives A LOT of the discussions on abortion, euthenasia, disease super spreaders, social and other sorts of contagion.

I've met plenty of people who had personality disorders who could easily be classes as "anit-authority", they'd use the finest sounding politics or philosophy if they thought it would aid them in their own highly, highly personal (ironically definitely private) travils and turmoils, and a lot of people did think they were great "partisans" of this or that cause of the moment, but they were not good company beyond the third day and you could not have trusted them with a simple delivery let alone anything more strenuous or challenging.

 

[ceecee]

As I was saying....

One of the posts, posted on X just before 3 a.m. Sunday, read: “Anyone who murders Kamala Harris would be an American hero.” Other posts, sent later that morning, read: “The point of the second amendment is to shoot and kill tyrannous politicians,” and “Encouraging politicians to be shot is legal under the first amendment. It's part of what makes this country great.”

NH Libertarian Party's post on 'assassination' of Harris attracts attention of state, federal law enforcement

In a response Monday, the party said on X, “We would never advocate for the assassination of a tyrannical President. That’s illegal. We were merely acknowledging how some members would react to one.”

www.nhpr.org