Why do so many so called libertarians turn out to be right-wing authoritarians?

Why do so many so called libertarians turn out to be right-wing authoritarians?

Libertarianism and anarchism is one step away from feudalism.

American Libertarianism was always full of basically crypto racists, obviously they are not all that way but wherever you may find the cooky libertarian type a hardcore racist is never far away. Just my observations.

>capitalism
>libertarian

Right wing "libertarians" oppose the state, not oppression and hierarchies in general like libertarians do. Why wouldn't they be authoritarians?

They realized you cannot have private property without a state.

Why not? The concept of private property long predates the concept of the state

In their mind, only government oppresses. All else can be dealt with under a mythical free market system. Sam seder destroys these fucks on youtube all the time

That's not true. The core of any state is a monopoly on legitimate force to maintain control over property. The moment one guy who owned a farm hired 3 dudes to stop anyone taking it off him, the state, in an extremely weak and primitive form, was born.

The difference being that competition with the state is civil war.

Not him or a lolbertarian but id say that taxation is the point we can call something a state.

I'm pretty sure private property wasn't necessarily a thing before civilization existed. As long as civilization existed we can assume there were some forms of hierarchy even before communities were developed.

Because many of them have been radicalized by the increasing insanity they see around them in the form of society and the political left.

People like the OP pic wanted to believe you could reason with lunatics, found out you couldn't, and decided to use their bitcoins to buy jackboots.

Hoppe went so far as to create an entire brand of libertarianism based on this ideal, saying that communities should be able to set standards of membership.

Well, non-state oppression and hierarchy almost inevitably congeals into a state, whether one calls it a state or not. But some people are too dense to realize that.

Companies go out of business, the government prevents bankruptcy through taxation.

If we take the primitive "one dude with guards" as a baseline the effective taxable population is one, in order to maintain the state the soverign, who is also the sole taxpayer must pay his guards lest his micro society collapse.

This. It's literally a reaction to left wing nuts chomping out and calling everyone a nazi

Basic process, you start out as a conservative, decide that most people are generally reasonable and taxes are too high, so lets go back to what the Founders intended and cut welfare and social spending, and set clear limits on the power of government.

Then some naked person with anime-hair and ambiguous gender screams at you for existing, and you've decided maybe Hitler was on to something.

Before Antifa there really wasn't that many fa.

They are cowards, fake libertarians who maybe at one point parroted the idea that "he who trades liberty for security deserves neither", but threw it overboard as soon as they became aware of the so-called "red pill" issues (demographics, race, etc.) because they lacked the imagination and strength of character to insist on non-authoritarian approaches to these problems.
They were only committed to liberty as long as the going seemed relatively easy and the worst problems to be faced were political questions of making laws and so on. When big thorny issues floated into their awareness, they panicked and bolted for the delusional fantasy of a virtuous authoritarian state that exists only to protect liberties and magically doesn't fall prey to the corruption that states normally do.
If I seem mad, it's because I am. I'm a moderate libertarian/classical liberal, and it's annoying when retards use your terminology to describe themselves.

>some limpwristed liberals sperg online saying stupid shit
>guess I better become a nazi now

pretty retarded desu

>I'm a moderate libertarian
>it's annoying when retards use your terminology to describe themselves
I get what you mean but you're doing the same.

Antifa has been around as long as fascism

This. I think many such people really just subconsciously wanted to be nazis all along. That's why they tend to exaggerate the real leftist idiocy that exists into all these world-spanning conspiracy theories -- cultural marxism, feminism destroying the West, etc. Their obsession with feminism is particularly funny (when it's not gruesome and sad) because so much of it obviously stems from their own sexual inadequacies.

True. I guess I feel like I have more of a right to the terminology than they do because I feel intellectually and morally superior to them.

It's like idiots that suddenly become theists because they saw fedora memes online. How retarded do you have to be to get your worldview from what a couple of retards say online?

This sort of thing seems to be more popular now, or maybe I'm just noticing it because I'm older, but these kind of people make this site almost unusable compared to how it was 10 years ago.

>i have no faith in my convictions and my arguments are so shit the mere existence of a radical opposition forces me to give up on my core ideals of small government in favour of a warlords cock.
amazing

I think its teenagers, who use the internet more than ever before.

They came into /pol/ from reddit, and from there the rest of the site. Goddamn teenagers.

Agreed. Popular boards have become insufferable.

Because right-wing libertarians are not actually libertarian, they hijacked the term from the left and appropriated it to mean a support for capitalism and free market fundamentalism. Actual libertarianism is socialist.

Unfortunately I think that's what it is. I don't like sounding like a grumpy old man, but that's how it is.

I used to use /v/ a lot in the mid-late 2000s, but since 2011 or so it's just become unusable and it makes me sad because I had so many good experiences discussing video games.

The community that gets it laughs by pretending to be idiots will eventually get swarmed by actual idiots. Some people have taken the happy merchant meme a bit too far, and what started out as old-fashioned Veeky Forums contrarianism when Obama got into office laid the foundations for the malignant tumor that is current /pol/, which is, by the way, currently the most largest board population wise.

It's not free if the government is telling you how to run your company.

In fairness, it's just just an online thing anymore - there are a lot of relatively mainstream liberals and leftists in positions of power. Particularly in academia. At some colleges, and I'm talking about large state schools here, it's impossible to complete a 4-year degree without having to take a couple classes that basically amount to "Sit there and hold your tongue while the professor jams propaganda down your throat."

Of course, the mainstream right wing is getting pretty nutty too, and it's stupid to base your whole ideology off a reaction to a couple bad experiences. But as a lifelong liberal myself, I'm increasingly feeling alienated from my political peers - I may agree with a lot of what they say but goddamn if the way they say it doesn't make me want to punch them in the throat.

>libertarian
>right wing

Pick one

>there are a lot of relatively mainstream liberals and leftists in positions of power
Erm, what I meant was something along the lines of "mainstream liberals and leftists [WHO ARE REALLY FUCKING OBNOXIOUS]"

Reformatted that sentence and lost a big chunk of it somehow.

Bullshit.

99% of the time "libertarians" vote for right-wing candidates. Their main ideological influence is on conservative political parties, and they only really get fired up about left-wing fiscal policy (and occasionally marijuana), they generally don't give a damn about most of the excesses of the right.

Theory < practice, libertarians are right-wing.

How can one person be this wrong?
Libertarianism is the same as classic liberalism

>But as a lifelong liberal myself, I'm increasingly feeling alienated from my political peers - I may agree with a lot of what they say but goddamn if the way they say it doesn't make me want to punch them in the throat.

I consider myself to be more of a democratic socialist (ala Eugine Debs) and completely agree with that sentiment. It feels like the modern left is more interested in the appearance of being socially progressive than actually representing left-wing politics.

Maybe if liberal political parties didn't see the government as the solution to all problems, including those libertarians agree with them are problems, libertarians would be more likely to vote for them.

American right-wing libertarianism (not to be confused with the earlier individualist anarchism that was once popular there) is already quite hierarchical by default.

Probably because they are stupid and don't know what the word means laching onto the liber part of the word.
I have never met a libertarian I would describe as authoritarian, most of the ones I know just say I don't care what you do as long as you are not harming others.

Yeah, no, no it's not. Again, what you stand for IN THEORY matters fuck all compared to what you DO. Libertarianism isn't just a philosophy, it's a real, concrete political movement characterized by the words and actions of, you know, ACTUAL FUCKING LIBERTARIANS, and although it occasionally suits them to talk a big game about social policy, what really matters to them is fiscal policy.

In the US, the big issues for libertarians have consistently been the economy (and how much the gov't should meddle in it), social spending, and taxation, not e.g. gay/minority rights and abortion; that's how the movement started and that's how libertarians still behave today. Yes, there are exceptions, but they're reare. And that's why the Libertarian Party's "base" (such as it is) has much more overlap with the Republicans' than the Democrats', and why people rightly consider them right-wing.

I'm well-aware of what libertarianism is supposed to be, believe me. Unlike you, I have my eyes open, and I can see what it actually IS.

Because the modern left has become infiltrated by authoritarian leftists aka communists.
Which is what probably has been causing the mass disenfranchisement we are seeing in modern society.
Both moderate left and right are being usurped by authoritarianism, well the libertarian ideals are being as ineffective as ever with the moderates being marginalized.

taxation does not work well without menaces, without watching people and without the realization of the fantasy of punishing people who disagree, since most people do not want to give their riches away, even when the people who feel entitled to the money claim to act for the ''common good''

It is almost as if private property is something protected by the State. Scratch a libertarian and a fascist bleeds

>they called me a fascist so I became one
Can't make this shit up

Libertarians were some of the first to call for gay rights, its just to most libertarians, mission number one is reducing the size and scope of government, but that doesnt mean they dont care about social issues, there more than willing to work with liberals on those issues, just by voting for liberals

dave rubin pls go

>Getting cucked out of thinking by bloody leftists
>They call me a nazi, may as well become one, that'll show them!

Or maybe people chose to forget that there are leftists that aren't Leninist. You wanna guess what Orwell, Keller and MLK have in common?

Also bullshit. The divide in the US isn't really between which party is more willing to expand the government's reach and power, it's what each party wants to DO with the government. Republicans consistently stand for military spending, corporate welfare, and more meddling in people's personal lives (pursuant to their alliance with the Christian right); democrats consistently stand for social spending and regulation/oversight of the economy. Conservatives, of course, have thoroughly adopted the "government is the problem" rhetoric, and quite successfully convinced much of the electorate (apparently including you) that they stand for small gov't, but it's simply not true.

Neither party is really a good home for small government conservatives anymore. They're both more than willing to expand the role of the gov't when it suits them.

The fact that libertarians consistently vote with one side over the other is fine, but it's not about big gov't vs. small gov't, it's just a matter of priorities -- which kind of meddling do I actually dislike, and which do I say I dislike but when push comes to shove not really care that much about?

Spoken like somebody who doesn't understand what a libertarian and/or a fascist is.

self-preservation of the NAP meme requires violations of the NAP

The republicans are hypocrites and most libertarians know it. But here is the thing, most democrats do all those things you pointed out about republicans too. Only a small number of extremely progressive democrats reject an aggressive foreign policy and are serious about corporate welfare reform. Republicans will at least lower taxes, which in the eyes of many (though not me) makes them slightly better.

ITT

Veeky Forums got COLONIZED

Spoken like someone with no arguments

>there more than willing to work with liberals on those issues, just by voting for liberals
Libertarians rarely vote for liberals. That's the fucking point.

As for "reducing the size and scope of the government," see my last post.

It doesn't matter what you say you stand for, what matters is how you actually push for and how you vote. Of course, between a fiscal conservative who supports gay marriage and an identical fiscal conservative who opposes it, most libertarians will vote for the former guy, but that doesn't FUCKING MATTER. In the US, in general - yes there are exceptions, but in general - voting for a fiscal conservative means voting for a social conservative, and voting for a social liberal means also voting for a fiscal liberal, and the fact that libertarians consistently ally themselves with and vote for one over the other shows you where their priorities lie (and how strong their preference is).

Which is fine. I'm not here to criticize you for your priorities. But don't fucking lie about them.

So people that are long dead.
The problem is the more modern shift in dynamics.

Lolbertarian spotted

yeah sorry, I meant just not by voting for liberals.

personally I dont think liberals are nearly as socially liberal as they claim, at least not how I define social liberal, they feel society should be nudged in the right direction through government pressure and activism.

I don't know, the amount of /pol/eddit is pretty low for now ITT.

If you think libertarians are at all compatible with fascism you literally do not know what one or both of those terms mean. It's absolutely impossible for a libertarian to be remotely fascist or vice versa.

This thread has nothing to do with history.

& Humanities was a mistake.

Brush up on your reading comprehension, I only said libertarians are closet fascists not whether libertarianism is compatible with fascism

This board is for discussion of history and the humanities.

Depends on that political climate, if there is overwhelming communist support and communist ideals libertarians would most likely be able to find some common ground with fascists, in a moderate society you are absolutely right however.

>I only said libertarians are closet fascists
Because you're a retard who doesn't know what fascism is.

This thread is about politics, not humanities, not history. It doesn't belong on Veeky Forums, it belongs on /pol/. You're only here because /pol/ is full of shitposting redditors. Too bad, get the fuck back to /pol/.

Not the same person but I think it was a light-hearted poke that a libertarian still requires a state, and states are by design oppressive.

No, those ideologies are totally incompatible. It is definitively impossible to hold libertarian values and fascist values simultaneously because they are located at opposite ends of the liberty axis.

Another retard who doesn't know what a libertarian or fascist is.

Long dead and yet their radical socialistic past is forgotten for a more liberal image to be consumed by liberals and conservatives. With none of the other socialistic icons( Debs being an excellent example here too) being taught or remembered, how can any pleb see leftism as anything but authoritarian Leninist?

Read the posts ITT before posting your non arugements

Wow great argument you got there, roastie!

Libertarians are really against the suppression of speech so they will tolerate racism and authoritarian thinking in their circles by doing nothing to control it.

But that also requires them to form their ideas based on being left, well simultaneously only getting information based off of other people what that means....
Do people really do that? They go left is good so everything left is good oh the only well known leftists are authoritarians guess I better be one?
That is pure insanity if people really do think like that modern society has truly failed.

Hmm... true, I guess this thread does violate the letter of the board's law. Oh well. At least it's interesting.

Why is racism bad faggot? And you're authoritarian for trying to ban such thoughts you might not like

There's nothing un-libertarian about racism as long as it doesn't creep into politics. Racism only becomes un-libertarian if people start trying to make racial policies.

Case in point.

I never said I wanted to ban things I don't like. Why is /pol/ this autistic?

Of course, but that wasn't the point. I was just answering the OP's question why libertarians tend towards authoritarian policies sometimes.

Going to assume this is not bait and you actually want information.
Racism is bad because it perpetuates that people are different based off their skin and removes personal responsibility, case in point, a white needing better scores on a test to get the same grade as a black man, in a liberal society you would not see this because it would exemplify personal responsibility of you over collective responsibility of your race.
Collective ideologies love racism because it groups people into more easily managed lumps. So the more authoritarian you are the more you want people unified by superficial differences.
By unifying your group under such a banner it makes it easier to oppress another group. You can see this in most atrocities, Armenia, Holocaust, Serbia, ect.
It is also a form of caste system by saying these people are better then these other people because of their skin color or some other stupid minor difference.

Potential leftists or plebs don't know much about non-authoritarian leftism(for reasons already stated)such that those who do become leftists are authoritarian. If the history and ideas of syndicalism, democratic and Christian socialism etc etc are more widely known, there would be more leftists and less authorian leftists.

By the way punctuate your sentences properly.

>I may agree with a lot of what they say but goddamn if the way they say it doesn't make me want to punch them in the throat.
True but the "liberals are retarded so I'm going to become a meme-loving fascist" is still fucking dumb.

I'm socialist and I think almost every socialist is an insufferable cunt.

t. SJW who thinks any person who disagrees with him is a racist

A "State" is basically a justified, in the literal sense, monopoly on force desu.

It's not ideology if it's true.

Only lolbertarian I've met that hasn't been a massive nazi is a black dude.

>I'm socialist and I think almost every socialist is an insufferable cunt.
The perfect summary of the discourse within the left

Because when you step on snek snek steps on you

>Libertarians rarely vote for liberals. That's the fucking point.

Why would they? Liberals are completely unwilling to give libertarians anything that might slightly inconvenience them. The fact of the matter is; if a libertarian is willing to go 95% of the way towards a liberal, they might as well have gone 0%.

At least conservatives will try and court libertarians by pretending that they want to throw them a bone.

They support maximum libertarianism, and that only occurs when left wing violence and gibsmedat demographics are countered

Because society is becoming more radicalized.

>syndicalism
Authoritarian
>democratic
Authoritarian
>Christian Socialism
Defiantly authoritarian

How do you see that 'non-authoritarian leftism' working out.

Because they start out just wanting to be left the fuck alone and they finally realize that leftists are too parasitic and imperialistic for that to ever happen.

Who are the Christians defying?

I blame Marxist scum

All niggers I met were lazy welfare leeches that were voluntarily unemployed.

Checkmate empiricist

The problem with libertarianism is that it's simply not fucking feasible, and I'm saying that as a registered, voting libertarian. You can't function without a large government, you'll get run over and turned into roadkill by an invading enemy or have shit quality of life without public healthcare. It's another form of utopianism.

So while ideally I believe in a libertarian world, I'm forced to put my stock into constitutional monarchy as an ideal form of democracy (IMO, Britain's political system where the royals still exercise their power as an executive branch instead of sitting on their asses is an ideal form of government for functionality).

Wtf is a "gay right" exactly apart from not being criminally persecuting someone for being gay?