What Broke Libertarianism
What Broke Libertarianism
Nearly the whole of the intellectual class has betrayed liberty. But among those who were supposed to be less susceptible were libertarians.
Very interesting take about current state of Libertarianism after covid period.
Yeah, COVID really did put the idea that people can self organize constructively in the face of global events into the ground.
Well, I think it was mainly the libertarian response to covid - as they adopted the woke rage and get rid of any idea of freedom or personal responsibility.
As a bellwether, consider the current Libertarian Party.
I'd really rather not. The Libertarian Party has always been a disappointment, and that's especially true with the Mises Caucus takeover. I think Chase Oliver's nomination was more a rejection of the Mises Caucus than anything.
Defense of Chase Oliver's COVID statements
he not only failed to challenge the core of Covid ideology
Attacking him for his mask and vaccine opinions is silly, here's how I interpret what Oliver has said:
- he demonstrates personal responsibility by wearing a mask and getting vaccinated as asked and recommended
- workers who quit over mask and/or vaccine policies shouldn't get unemployment - that should be true for any company policy; if you disagree with your company's policies, find employment elsewhere, and sue if you believe there was a contract violation
- he supported promising medical treatments (there were initial studies demonstrating effectiveness) being available quickly - libertarians should absolutely agree here, people should have the right to take any medication they would like to try
Libertarianism is about personal responsibility as well as individual freedoms, and it's reasonable to support both simultaneously. Having the freedom to not wear masks, not get vaccinated, and not social distance doesn't mean you have to exercise those rights, you can still be a considerate human. That's how I read his statements.
As someone who lived in a state (Utah) without lockdowns (schools were shut down for the last month and a half of the school year, and that's it), Oliver's responses read like my own opinions:
- businesses may choose their own policies around masks, vaccines, and social distancing on their property for customers and workers
- government agencies may require masks on their property, such as airports, border crossings, police stations, etc
- individuals should follow CDC guidance, but there should be no compulsion
I fervently oppose any government requirements while strongly support following government guidance. Knowing what I know now, I would wear a mask and get vaccinated again because those are safe and effective ways of slowing the spread of COVID. Even today, I'll voluntarily wear a mask if I know I'm sick out of consideration for those I'm around, as well as voluntarily distance myself from others.
His main failing was not being vocal about lockdowns. Here's what happened in his state (he was running for House that year, and later Senate):
- March 11 - WHO declares state of emergency
- March 14 - Georgia declares state of emergency
- March 16 - public schools to close starting March 18 - later extended to the end of the school year
- March 23 - shelter-in-place order for "medically fragile"; bars closed and gatherings with >10 people banned unless practicing social distancing
- April 2 - shelter-in-place order extended to pretty much everyone
- businesses start to reopen gradually
- April 30 - shelter-in-place order expired
I'm certainly against the shelter-in-place order and I don't know what enforcement looked like, but it only lasted a month or so, which is way better than many other states. The first few months of COVID were filled with a lot of confusion, so if anything, Oliver should be applauding Gov. Kemp for ending the shelter-in-place order when there was a lot of pressure to keep restrictions going.
Nearly a decade later, the American Right’s libertarian contingent has seemingly been dealt its final blow.
This is more a statement about the rot among conservatives than anything to do with libertarianism. A lot of these "libertarians" were just fiscal hawks who don't actually support libertarian principles and ideals.
Domestic manufacturing, fiat vs gold standard, trade
tradition of American manufacturing
That "tradition" was because we were a poor country once, and when we grew out of that phase, we moved manufacturing elsewhere so our labor market could focus on higher value work. Why should we manufacture something here when our people could earn more by moving those jobs elsewhere?
It's not like we have a huge labor surplus or anything, so bringing those jobs back means we'd have to give up more valuable jobs here. Unless, of course, we're going to open up our borders and bring in lots of cheap labor, but neither major party is going to let that happen.
gold standard
The gold standard is stupid, why should we base our monetary system on some random metal? Why not put that metal to use in our economy instead?
The discussion shouldn't be about fiat vs gold-backed currency, the discussion should be about centralized vs decentralized currencies. I'm 100% fine with the dollar being a fiat currency, but I also want some competition in the currency market. If I want to use cryptocurrencies, foreign currencies, or gold-backed notes, I should be completely allowed to do that. It should be on the receiver of the payment to decide what method of payment will be used, and any laws restricting or promoting any one currency should be revoked.
becoming the world reserve currency
Yes, this was a strategic move to cement the US' position in the world.
huge trade agreements like Nafta, the EU, and the World Trade Organization were sold as free trade
Absolutely. In general, if you invert whatever a politician says, it's probably more accurate. "Free trade" is about excluding certain countries and thus spreading influence to countries who do what we like.
I don't see what any of this has to do with libertarianism though, this is just the neoliberalism espoused by both major parties.
But, when governments around the country literally took a sledgehammer to free association, free enterprise, free speech, even the freedom of worship, did the “liberty movement” fly into action?
No. The Libertarian Party had nothing to say, even though it was an election year.
Yes, the Libertarian Party is a disappointment, and has been since it was founded. If this is the article's big thesis, it's just stating the obvious with way more words than necessary.
More COVID stuff
Then there was the subject of vaccine mandates as imposed by businesses. The typical libertarian answer was that business can do what it wants because it is their property and their right to exclude. Those who don’t like it should get another job, as if that were an easy proposition and no big deal to hurl people out of their jobs for refusing an untested new injection they did not want or need.
Yes, that's the good and bad parts about liberty. Businesses have the liberty to choose their own policies, and you have the liberty on whether to accept those or go elsewhere. You can't eat your cake and have it too, choices have consequences, and that's how it should be.
The vaccine companies were indemnified by law
This is the real problem here. We have so much protectionism that the motivations and market forces are all messed up. And it's not just pharmaceuticals, but businesses across the board have way more protections than they should have, and that's messing with the free market.
The article claims it's a mystery, but it really isn't. Governments siding with powerful corporate interests is a tale as old as time, and the start of it, IMO, was the 16th amendment to allow the federal government to directly tax the population. This is where the government really switched from being a policeman to being more involved in the economy and establishing regulations. That was a domino effect that eventually led to companies lobbying for more legal protections.
libertarianism needs to rediscover sincere passion and a willingness to tell the truth in hard times, same as motivated abolitionist movements in the past
Agreed. But the problem is that with everything being so polarized, the moment you attempt to speak up, you get shouted down by some larger organization.
So you need to pick your battles, and I think Chase Oliver has done a decent job of doing that. Articles like this cutting his feet out from under him really aren't helping matters. So instead of putting a spokesperson down for not going far enough, we should be applauding them when they do take a stand (i.e. applauding Trump on his rare Libertarian statements at the convention, and booing him the rest of the time), and Chase Oliver has his fair share of hot takes that should be applauded and repeated.
My take is that this article is a part of the problem it claims to want to solve. It's presenting it's own flavor of libertarianism (they really care about opposing COVID responses, but that's not really relevant right now), and trying to cut down anyone who doesn't meet that standard. That's unhelpful, and just adds to the infighting we already have.
Anyway, that's my take, thanks for posting!