Thread by @drvolts

1. All right, fine, I'm waiting for a frozen pizza to cook, might as well rant about libertarianism in the meantime. I wanna focus not on the psychology of adherents (though, as one of the adherents in question for a few years, I could) or the practical difficulties, but ...

2. ... the theory itself -- why it appeals & why it's ultimately conceptually incoherent.

So, consider libertarianism in economics,ie, laissez faire. Virtually everyone, even the most enthusiastic proponent of "free markets," realizes ...

5. ... to maximize their respective freedom is for both to agree to limitations. The freedom-maximizing equilibrium is a mix of freedoms & restrictions. The laissez-faire utopia where all freedoms are unlimited & inviolate is not just practically but *conceptually* impossible.

6. The same is true any freedom. Take freedom of speech. We kinda acknowledge limits (the "fire in a crowded theater") thing, but it goes deeper than that. If I, as a white man, have unlimited freedom to express, say, may racist & sexist beliefs, I help create a social climate...

7. ... in which the speech rights of women & POC are curtailed, out of fear of reprisal or simply exclusion from venues where speech can be heard. For my right of speech to be *absolute*, the rights of others (speech & otherwise) must be curtailed.

8. Sometimes this shades over into an argument about negative rights (freedom from coercion) vs. positive rights (the right to a good/service/opportunity), but even if you just stick to negative rights, you still get incoherence -- they can't all be maximized at once.

9. I think this is what the ex-libertarians at Niskanen realized -- if you simply remove gov't restrictions, the economic & social spheres end up crushing freedoms just fine on their own. Lack of gov't restraint unburdens the already-powerful, but only at the expense of others.

10. So if you want the most freedom for the most people, you end up needing something like the high-tax, high-redistribution Scandanavian states.

The larger point here is that philosophies that focus on unlimited negative freedoms, like libertarianism & laissez-faire ...

11. ... hold immense appeal to groups & demographics who enjoy entrenched social & economic power, because, under the guise of fairness or procedural neutrality, they reprise existing power relationships. If I'm on top, "everyone's free to do/say anything" sounds great to me.

12. If I'm suffering from entrenched power relationships, the appeal is rather diminished. I can say whatever I want, but I could be risking my job, physical safety or tenuous social position. And I have no access to any microphones or op-ed pages anyway. The freedom is notional.

13. Libertarianism is what people in power in society want to believe. Laissez-faire is what dominant incumbents in the market want to believe. It's a way of cementing their power in place under a veil of rhetoric that appears principled.

14. This kind of notionally neutral language is what powerful incumbents retreat to any time groups on the outside start demanding consideration. Pay special attention to the horrors visited on black people? "All lives matter!" Take climate damages seriously? "All of the above!"

15. Powerful & privileged groups naturally retreat to the faux-principled language of neutrality when their privileges are challenged.

But, tellingly, when the same groups start *losing* power -- either in a democracy or in a market -- the libertarianism goes out the window.

16. Like, in the early 2000s, when coal was dominant, coal lobby groups would constantly throw around "free market" language in order to fight off any regulations or taxes that might restrain them. But now that coal is losing in the market? That language has vanished ...

17. ... to be replaced with language about how coal deserves special consideration, subsidies and favors, because of heartland-something-something jobs-something-something America-something-something. Where'd the laissez-faire go fellas?

18. Similarly, when all store clerks just naturally said "merry Christmas" because of dominant white Christian culture, the right was chockablock with libertarians. Now that the marketplace of ideas has shifted & clerks are trying to be more neutral in their greetings ...

19. ... the libertarianism is out the window & they wanna force clerks to say Christmas. When car/road subsidies were ubiquitous & thus practically invisible? Libertarian. When other transpo modes started getting consideration? Gah, "war on cars," hands off my subsidies!

20. The point I'm laboriously & circuitously making is that, whether it's in a democracy or a market, powerful incumbents are on the side of their power. As long as that power is secure, they hide behind a veil of procedurally neutral ideology. But the minute it's threatened ...

21. ... the procedural neutrality is abandoned in favor of raw defense of power. No powerful incumbent actually wants a "level playing field," they just say that to ward of reforms of playing fields tilted in their favor. NO ONE chooses libertarian principle over their own power.

22. Powerful incumbents are heavily incentivized to view their own power as a result of merit. This is why every rich person is convinced their wealth is a result of their cleverness & hard work alone. The same is true of powerful demographics. History is packed ...

23. ... with dominant groups justifying their dominance as natural & proper -- then it was divine right of kings, now it's free markets.

But *true* democracy, much like a truly competitive market, is anathema to incumbents! A truly level playing field terrifies them.

24. If you want to maximize freedom in a democracy (or competitiveness in a market), then no freedom can be absolute. Maximizing total freedom always involves *balancing* freedoms, with everyone agreeing to some constraints & sacrifices for the larger good.

25. Absolute freedom is an *illusion of power*, a notion that's only plausible to someone observing the world atop a mountain of accumulated privilege. This is why 99.99% of libertarians are upper middle class white dudes. (Don't they ever wonder why that is?)

26. If you already have power, "leave me alone" sounds like freedom. If you suffer under a grinding legacy of historically entrenched structural disadvantages, "leave me alone" sounds like "leave me alone to suffer & die in powerless silence."

27. Providing real freedom for the disadvantaged -- truly maximizing the freedom of the maximum number of people -- necessarily will require reducing the privileges & accumulated advantages of the powerful. And yes, sometimes curtailing their total freedom of action.

28. When you realize this, it becomes clear that libertarianism, as a philosophy, is a *defense against that process*. It says, "shrink gov't & leave me alone to enjoy my power." It is a defense of power masquerading as procedural neutrality.

29. This entire thread also serves as an explanation for why the GOP has drifted so far away from its "small gov't" quasi-libertarian rhetoric. When white male patriarchal Christian culture was firmly at the top of US culture, "leave us alone," as a philosophy, appealed.

30. But when culture & demographics started reducing the primacy of white male patriarchal Christian culture, the language of procedural neutrality declined & white supremacy rose to the surface -- because social/political/economic dominance was *always the real motivation*.

31. In a pluralistic, multiethnic, multicultural society, maximizing the freedom & welfare of the most people requires active gov't & active measures to reduce entrenched privilege. Passive, hands-off gov't appeals to those who'd just as soon hang on to those privileges.

32. In conclusion, there are no true libertarians -- really, no one who cares about "size of gov't" as such. There are groups & demographics w/ power & groups & demographics without. The former want to freeze things in place; the latter want reform. Same as it ever was.

33. By now, my pizza has long since been cooked & consumed & I have learned once again that Twitter probably isn't the best venue for long chains of thought. I shall now go walk my dog & obsess over edits I'd like to make to the foregoing. </fin>

34. All right, since a bizarre number of people have asked: it was a California Pizza Kitchen thin-crust margherita pizza. Thoroughly mediocre, though tolerable when doused with hot sauce. It's got the thin crust I like. Basically I want my pizza on a saltine cracker.