Why I Dislike Libertarianism

I am a young and college-educated professional. Thus, my expected political orientation gears toward libertarianism. You know, earning good money pushes one toward the right, as taxes loom greater of a concern than, says, the amount of welfare I collect. On the other hand, youth and college education ween me off any love of medieval beliefs, such as anti-abortion, homophobia, etc. Therefore, libertarianism presents an excellent compromise: lower taxes, yet still free to explore whatever philosophy and lifestyle strike my fancy. As a matter of fact, many of my friends tend toward this school of thoughts. And too many programmers (my kin, obviously) only proclaim their fondness for this political school.

However, I myself never like libertarianism. For one, I don’t like the rolling of the tongue to get the whole word out. For my accent, I must push out like 7 syllables to pronouce it. For such a youthful wing, their failure to a better name is quite remarkable! I mean, did they not learn anything from Ayn Rand? For a philosophy from a third-rate philosopher that is anything but objective, Objectivism sounds so good that one can’t help but like it. The name plays a huge marketing role, guys, so shape it up!

Anyhow, if you have not realized that I am kidding, I am kidding. I dislike long words, but the name alone does not arouse such suspicion. I mean, I like a lot of Eastern schools of thought whose names are just ridiculous. So, bad name is a joke.

In fact, for a long time, I am not sure why I don’t like libertarianism. I used to attribute such dislike to my general principle of disliking most right-wing stuff. But every time I look at libertarianism, a huge suspicion just pops up and haunts my mind. It feels very similar to a quest to avoid sweet and embrace broccoli: you know what you are supposed to like, you motivate yourself to like what you are supposed to, all the way until some invisible force (aka the sweet tooth) breaks down your will power and jumps at the dear dear dessert. Libertarianism is the opposite of dessert to me. I even bought books on the matter, and forced myself to read it. I gave up after about 3 chapters. Just can’t do it. Given that I can crank through 800 pages on Civil War, will power alone (or there lack of) can’t explain it. Must be something else.

I searched for that “something” for a long time. After all, I pride myself as an open-minded person. I always try on the other pair of shoes. I always believe that all ideas embraced by sufficient number of people are entitled to some degree of consideration. Thus, I continuously speculated on why I can’t stand libertarianism.

And one day, it hit me. By “it,” I meant, “why I hate libertarianism.” Not libertarianism. No, I still hate that school of thought. But, at least, I know why I hate it. There are actually 2 reasons, and both of which run against my core beliefs. No wonder I can’t stand the thing. And here they are.

First, libertarianism (and, to some degrees, the whole conservatism movement) divides the world into 2 camps: the good and the bad. The good is always good, and the bad always bad; there is no mixed, no gray area. An idea is either bad, and must be destroyed; or, it is good, and must be worshiped. There is no middle ground.

According to libertarianism, the government is bad. It’s just bad. Why is it bad? It’s political, which, to many people, is synonym for “dirty” and “tyranny” and “oppressive.” It’s artificial, which is synonym for “plastic” and “poisonous” and “unnatural.” In conclusion, it’s bad. And because the government is bad, all of its creations are bad. Paper money is bad. Infrastructure is bad. Taxes are especially bad. Welfare is extremely bad.

Reversely, the market is good. By the way, the image of the market conjured up by libertarianism is especially lovely. One can imagine a civilized bazaar, where all the sellers are honest and all the buyers are all-knowing. Oh, and the market is supremely natural, and has been around since forever. Similar to above, because the market is good, all of its creations are, by default, good. In fact, they would argue, with a straight face, that monopoly is way better than regulation.

Here lies the central difference between libertarianism and classical conservatism: Conservatives are, I think, quite romantic. They define God and Demon, but they also want heroes and myths. So, despite their hatred of Lucifer, I meant the government, they love the army, the police, and the church; they long for a good old day when love, traditions, and justice prevail. This romanticism, unfortunately, gets in the way of their otherwise black-and-white vision. Libertarians, meanwhile, hold no such follies. Army? Heroism? Traditions? All begone! One thing matters above all else: the classification of Good and Bad. And, sorry Pentagon, you are on the wrong side of the grand design of the universe. So bye bye.

Oh, and another difference between libertarianism and conservatism, the difference that renders the former utterly unbearable to me, while the latter merely distasteful. Conservatism is at least practical. After all, longing the past requires some sort of practicality. Otherwise, such past can’t exist. Libertarianism requires no such sentiment. Its greatest sentiment is the purity of its grand order of the universe. Again, in such universe, the government is bad, and the market is good.

This makes quite some comical expression of the world. I mean, Conservatism has some quite funny ideas (cutting taxes always raises the revenue, anyone?), but I can at least glimpse how their minds work. Libertarian expression of the world, on the other hand, is just purely comical to me. For example, they would say something like, politics is bad: it encourage people to cheat and step on each other. This, of course, I agree with. Then, they make a great jump: market, on the other hand, is good, because people will somehow turn 180 degrees and always compete fair and square. This is where I choke. Huh? So, the cheating, cruel bastards in the political world will just compete with only in quality and prices in the market. This brings to mind the collapse of 2008, the collapse of Enron, and about half a dozen other crises and crashes without me even trying.

Plus, the divorce with observation and careful study of the world (such time consuming process can be replaced with ideology, can it not?) leads to some very funny interpretations of history and predictions of the future. For example, they will reach back in some obscure merchant laws during medieval time to prove how natural and self-relient the market has been, and claim that the market will sustain the world if we just destroy the government. Well, then why did the medieval governments appear in the first place? (Need I remind everyone how oppressive these were compared to our gentle governments?) I mean, our species started out as small bands, without any government of any sort, like a bunch of monkeys. How did something so artificial as a government appear, if the market is so omnipotent and natural? By the way, this was not meant to be a rhetoric device. I seriously wonder how a libertarian explains that.

Enough with the design of the universe. There is another big reason why I hate libertarianism. It’s how irresponsible they are.

Should a libertarian group of people read that, they would jump up in protest. No, they ain’t irresponsible. Those liberals who can’t think for themselves are the irresponsible ones. They, on the other hand, never ask for anything from the government, and thus can’t be irresponsible.

It’s frankly hard to argue against such beautifully constructed argument. It is why Conservatism can claim responsibility for so long. When one pays the bills without external support, one is responsible, right? Well, kinda.

See, there are 2 types of costs: private and public. Private costs are the bills one pays. They are the prices of most goods and services that one consumes. They are not the only costs. There are public costs. For example, let’s say that you use a car. The private cost consists of the cost of maintenance and gasoline. However, there is another set of costs: the cost of pollution, the cost of building and maintaining the roads, social impacts (eg. noises and smoke) to the surrounding communities, etc. These are public costs.

The responsibility of Conservatism generally does not include public costs. That said, as mentioned above, conservatives are a romantic bunch, and they generally accept a subset of their public costs, especially those affecting their communities and legacies. Again, Libertarianism entertains no such romanticism. Like a true corporate, they deny any liability that they have the lightest chance of winning. And remember, in their fantasy of the marketplace, it will always drive the prices down to the lowest possible point. As such, they seek to always minimize their share of costs. If a firm destroy the world to make a cheap toys, well, that’s capitalism at work.

In fact, it is amazing how disconnected their complaints and solutions are. For example, they would moan loudly about the size of public debt. Yet, they would not pay a cent to it, if not forced to by laws. And in fact, they would fight tooth and nail to reduce the amount they have to pay. Never mind the debt will naturally grow (interest rate, anyone?); never mind that the roads and infrastructure they use require maintenance. If they don’t own something, it’s not their responsibility. So laughable.

In conclusion, my dislike of libertarianism turns out to be quite rational! After all, who want to live with holier-than-thou narcissist who refuse his portion of the public costs? Phew, they make me doubt my own rationality for quite a while (a few years!), which is quite a feat. Anyhow, now you know why Libertarianism is poisonous. It’s a set of fantasy that is proven by bad math and supported by pure narcissism (at this point, selfish is such a overly used word that it lost its bite). Let’s move away from it.