Why Libertarians Are Hypocrites

Explained by an Expert on Libertarians (He read some Wikipedia articles)

Dear Reader,

One of the things that attracted me to the libertarian movement was that I thought it was a consistent philosophy. I thought we subscribed to the Non-Aggression-Principle, which underpins our ideas on taxation, war, drug policy, education and commerce. 

Little did I know, the most consistent political philosophy in the world is also hypocrisy. 

In the excellent article “Here are 11 questions you should ask Libertarians to see if they’re hypocrites,” RJ Eskow lucidly outlines what the libertarian movement stands for and why we are all hypocrites. What’s more impressive, he did it after reading no more than three Wikipedia articles on the subject! A very impressive accomplishment!

This is the article:

https://www.alternet.org/2019/01/11-questions-you-should-ask-libertarians-see-if-theyre-hypocrites/

Here are the important things I learned:

Libertarianism is Nothing More Than the Embodiment of Ayn Rand

If you are a committed libertarian, this might surprise you. It did me. For years I mistakenly thought that libertarianism was a movement with a rich intellectual history. I thought we were influenced by the thinking of such great philosophers as Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Deirdre McCloskey, Frédéric Bastiat, Frederick Douglass, Henry Hazlitt, George Stigler, Rose Wilder Lane, Robert Murphy, John Locke, Ron Paul, Leonard Read, Milton and Rose Friedman, Eugen Böhm von Bawerk, John Stuart Mill, Llewellyn Rockwell, Carl Menger, Tom Woods, Bryan Caplan, Walter Block, Richard Epstein, Lysander Spooner, Frank Knight, Isabel Paterson, Thomas Sowell, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Friedrich Hayek, Thomas Jefferson and Murray Rothbard! (not a complete list)

It turns out, I was wrong. RJ Eskow clearly states that we are nothing more than sheep blindly following Ayn Rand. The same Ayn Rand that said “libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people.”

Even more devastating, the article points out that Ayn Rand said mean things about Martin Luther King and Gandhi! (Question 10)

The Only Reason I’m a Libertarian: The Koch Brothers

RJ Eskow proves that the resurgence of libertarian thought is the direct result of the Koch brothers. His ironclad proof: the Kochs gave money to the Cato Institute and Reason Magazine.

You might think that the resurgence of libertarianism was a result of a combination of several factors including:

• The Ron Paul Revolution

• The rise of Bitcoin

• The free exchange of information on the internet

• The 2008 financial crisis

• Heavy-handed government response to COVID-19

• The efforts of organizations like the Cato Institute, FEE, the Libertarian Party, the 10th Amendment Center, Young Americans for Liberty, Reason Magazine, the Mises Institute and many more.

• Shifting public opinion on the war on drugs and criminal justice reform

• Podcasts, Youtube channels, radio shows and blogs

• Never-ending wars

• Two completely dysfunctional major political parties

You were wrong. It’s Koch money. 

“Spontaneous Order” is Bogus

If you don’t know what “spontaneous order” is, the article conveniently quotes the Cato Institute (AKA the propaganda arm of the Koch Brothers) to explain it:

“… (O)rder in society arises spontaneously, out of the actions of thousands or millions of individuals who coordinate their actions with those of others in order to achieve their purposes.”

And then, in a masterful stroke, the article delivers a devastating critique. If you are standing up, you might want to sit down for this: “To which the discerning reader might be tempted to ask: Like where, exactly?”

If that doesn’t convince you that libertarianism is ridiculous, I don’t know what will.

I mean, I can only think of like 5-6 examples of spontaneous order off the top of my head:

• Language

• Money

• Culture

• Norms

• Art

• Production of goods and services

• Science

• Architecture 

• Writing

• Literature 

• Commerce

• Communities

• Entertainment

• Religion

• Common law

• Ethics

• Families

• Philosophy

• Technological innovation 

• Oops, that’s more than 6

If You Believe in “Gravity,” You are a Hypocrite

The first of the excellent questions asked in the article is this: “Are unions, political parties, elections, and social movements like Occupy examples of “spontaneous order”—and if not, why not?”

As you can clearly see, this question proves that libertarians are hypocrites. We all know that libertarians don’t like Occupy Wall Street, labor unions or the results of most elections. But if libertarians believe spontaneous order exists, and if spontaneous order produces something they don’t like, they are hypocrites. 

Based on this undeniable logic, I have decided to stop believing in “gravity.” If you haven’t heard of “gravity” it is the idea that things fall. But sometimes people are hurt because of gravity. I don’t like when people get hurt. So I’ve decided to stop believing in gravity. I wouldn’t want to be a hypocrite.

Side note: I really appreciate the author’s deep understanding of this topic. Clearly, elections are an excellent example of spontaneous order. It’s so fascinating that every other year in November, elections spontaneously occur across the country without any involvement from the government at all.

Libertarians Must Admit that Economic Production Is Complicated

In his second devastating question, Eskow asks: “Is a libertarian willing to admit that production is the result of many forces, each of which should be recognized and rewarded?”

The fact that production is complicated is actually one of libertarianism’s main critiques of a planned economy. So by forcing us to admit that we are consistent in what we believe, he is actually proving that we are hypocrites.

See also:

https://mises.org/library/i-pencil

Once you admit that production is complicated, you must admit that government bureaucrats have the absolute right to redistribute wealth by force. If you can’t follow that logic, you are a hypocrite.

Libertarians have NUANCED Opinions on Labor Unions

The third question Eskow asks: “Is our libertarian willing to acknowledge that workers who bargain for their services, individually and collectively, are also employing market forces?”

After careful consideration of this question, I had to answer yes.

Now, if I believe that someone is using market forces, and I believe that market forces are good, then I can never question any of their actions. If I do, then I am a hypocrite.

If I believe that unions have a right to organize and bargain; but I object to unions violently attacking “scabs” or using government to force workers to join against their will or discriminating against racial minorities, that is nuance. And nuance is nothing more than hypocrisy. 

Let me lay out the logic for you idiotic libertarians that probably cannot figure it out on your own:

Market forces = Good

Collective bargaining by unions = A market force

Therefore:

Unions = Good

Therefore:

Hypocrisy = Questioning or opposing anything unions do.

Regulation is Necessary 

As we all know, prior to 2008 the banking and housing industry were completely and totally unregulated. There was no Fannie Mae. No Freddie Mac. There was no HUD or Federal Reserve. There was no SEC or FDIC. It was like the Wild West.

The only possible explanation for the housing crisis was deregulation. If those state-sponsored agencies had existed, libertarians might be able to make the argument that the FDIC had created moral hazard in the banking industry. And that artificially low interest rates from the Fed had encouraged too much investment in the housing industry. And that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had created incentives for banks to provide unhealthy loans.

If only we had all those agencies in 2007, there would never have been a financial crisis.

Never mind that the 2008 collapse conformed exactly to Austrian Business Cycle Theory and that libertarian economists like Peter Schiff, David Stockman, Ron Paul and Mark Thornton predicted the recession with scary precision. It’s painfully obvious that the Great Recession was a huge rebuke to libertarian economics.

That’s why the next question in the article is so powerful: “Is our libertarian willing to admit that a “free market” needs regulation?”

Libertarians are Racist 

The article shares a quote from libertarian billionaire Peter Thiel. If you squint, editorialize and turn your head just right, the quote almost looks racist. Here is a passage where Eskow editorialized brilliantly to manufacture libertarian racism:

Thiel complained about allowing women and people he describes as “welfare beneficiaries” (which might be reasonably interpreted as “minorities”) to vote. “Since 1920,” Thiel fulminated, “the extension of the franchise to (these two groups) have turned ‘capitalist democracy’ into an oxymoron.”

Wow! Could you imagine someone so racist that they just assume that anytime someone says “welfare beneficiaries” they could only be talking about minorities?

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that libertarians are racist.

Some Libertarians Secretly Don’t Trust Democracy 

It turns out that some Libertarians like Peter Thiel and Hans-Hermann Hoppe (the author of the book Democracy: the God that Failed) have a dirty little secret. They don’t trust democracy very much! (I don’t understand how they could be so sneaky to hide this fact. I wish they gave me some hint. Like saying so in the title of their books or something.)

Then comes the question: “Does our libertarian believe in democracy?”

You might think that some libertarians are disenchanted with democracy because it has been ineffective at protecting freedom and preventing war. Or you might think that certain libertarians believe that citizens cannot delegate rights that they don’t have (like the right to take people’s money or force people to go to war) to the government just because 51% of the people in an area checked a specific box.

But, again, you are wrong. Eskow shows that libertarians really want “the iron-fisted rule of wealth, administered by those who hold the most of it.” As we all know, limited government is synonymous with “iron-fisted rule.”

It is also important to note that this distrust of democracy is out of step with the founding fathers. They trusted democracy so much that they wrote a constitution that strictly limited the power of democratically elected representatives. 

Some Libertarians Benefit From the Government 

Three things libertarians should be aware of:

• The government provides education.

• The government protects intellectual property.

• The government (especially the military industrial complex) has invented new technology.

That is why the next question is so powerful: “Does our libertarian use wealth that wouldn’t exist without government in order to preach against the role of government?”

Imagine a slave-owner providing education to a slave. Then that slave turns around and uses that education to preach against slavery! Pure hypocrisy. Sure, the slave owner is in severe violation of that slave’s rights. But he did one nice thing.

If the government provided you with an education, it is hypocritical for you to criticize the government. There’s no way around it!

Libertarians Disagree on Some Things

The next question in the article is this: “Does our libertarian reject any and all government protection for his intellectual property?”

It’s important to note that libertarians disagree on this issue. (Another sign of hypocrisy. If you disagree with anyone who uses the same political label as you, that is a sure sign your are a hypocrite).

The foundation of libertarianism is respect for private property. So if a libertarian allows the government to protect their intellectual property, that means they are a hypocrite.

Democracy is a Form of Market

Next, the article asks: “Does our libertarian recognize that democracy is a form of marketplace?”

I must admit that I had never considered this.

Here is how I would define those two terms:

Marketplace noun mär-kət-ˌplās

1. a system where people voluntarily choose to exchange goods or services for other goods or services without coercion or force.

Democracy noun di-ˈmä-krə-sē  

1. a system where people voluntarily choose who to vote for. Then they use the threat of violence to force everyone to conform to the rulers that got the most votes.

See what I did there? Both definitions have “voluntarily choose” in them. Therefore, they are the same thing. 

Any person who thinks markets are moral must accept all democratically approved rules and regulations as moral. Any person who believes that markets help humanity flourish must accept that all democratic decisions help humanity to flourish. If they do not, they are hypocrites.

Corporations are the Real Threat to Freedom

After reading this article’s excellent and original point about why corporations are dangerous, (FYI, they are dangerous because they are big) I decided to compile a list of just a few of the evil things that corporations have done:

• Killed 45 million people in the Great Leap Forward

• Prolonged the Great Depression with idiotic economic policy

• Financially supported slavery with the Fugitive Slave Law

• Killed 6 million Jews during the Holocaust

• Sent corporate dissidents to the Gulag

• Forcibly relocated Japanese people from their homes

• Killed 37 million people in World War I

• Stole people’s property through taxation and inflation

• Forced people into slavery to fight in wars against their will using the draft

• Killed 85 million people in World War II

• Sent dogs to attack children that were marching peacefully to oppose Jim Crow Laws

Imagine that GOVERNMENTS had done ANY of those things. Every reasonable person would be clamoring to abolish the government. But you libertarians are so hypocritical that you won’t admit that the real problem is the corporations! 

If that doesn’t scare you, Eskow uses a scary word. If you are reading this to children, you may want to skip the next sentence. The word he uses is monopoly. 

If you are scared of monopoly, there is a solution. This is my nine-point-plan-to-stop-monopolies:

1. Create a huge regulatory burden to discourage new companies from entering the industry to challenge existing, large businesses.

2. Create a system of licenses to reduce the number of people who enter a specific field. Give control of the licensing board to industry insiders like The State Bar Association and The American Medical Association.

3. Give regulators and legislators nearly unlimited power so that corporate lobbyists have a large financial incentive to influence their decisions. The companies with the most money will be able to get the most favorable rules passed in their direction, often at the expense of their smaller competitors.

4. Label the most monopolistic companies as “too-big-to-fail” and give them billions of tax dollars. Be sure to set the expectation in the financial markets that these large firms have access to the full resources of the federal government. Investors will know that the large businesses are a much safer bet than their small competitors and will funnel their resources to the largest players at the expense of the small guy.

5. Create a complex web of international trade restrictions and tariffs so that large corporations don’t need to compete with foreign companies.

6. At the request of large companies, make anything that would be a good substitute for their products illegal. For example, if pharmaceutical companies are concerned that foreign companies will sell the exact same product for less money, make it illegal to buy the competing product. Tell everyone it is for consumer safety.

7. Issue monopolies to companies for patents and copyrights. These monopolies should be temporary. At least until a politically influential, large company lobbies to have the laws changed to benefit them.

8. Pass laws and regulations that force individuals and companies to purchase the services of specific large corporations (like health insurance companies and financial rating agencies).

9. If all else fails, nationalize the industry. The best way to prevent a monopoly is for the government to create a state-run monopoly. 

If you can’t see how those solutions would prevent monopolies, you are a hypocrite. 

Libertarian Ideas are Unpopular

Eskow saves his most powerful question for last: “If you believe in the free market, why weren’t you willing to accept as final the judgment against libertarianism rendered decades ago in the free and unfettered marketplace of ideas?”

Could you imagine the hypocrisy of an abolitionist in 1850 who also believed that people should have the right to freely provide services without coercion? Didn’t he know that abolitionism was unpopular in 1850? He believed in the market, but the marketplace for ideas had spoken. Abolitionism had been rejected and he still hypocritically clung to those ideas even though he believed in markets. You see the blatant hypocrisy?

Or a gay-rights activist in 1990 who believed consenting adults should be able to engage in relationships (both personal and financial) without interference from the state? Or an anti-war pacifist in 2002 who thought people should be able to exchange goods peacefully. 

If you believe in free markets, you must accept that only popular ideas are valid. Anyone who believes in free markets but has unpopular ideas is a hypocrite. That is the very definition of hypocrisy: to continue to believe in your core principles even after they become unpopular.

Libertarians are Illogical 

To finish, I’d like to quote a powerful line from the article: “Libertarianism is an illogical, impractical, inhumane, unpopular set of Utopian ravings which lacks internal coherence.”

No truer statement has ever been said. 

Libertarians are so hypocritical, they are unwilling to abandon their ideas even when they become unpopular!

Libertarians are so utopian they think governments (which have killed hundreds of millions of people in the last century) shouldn’t be trusted with too much power! 

Libertarian ideas like free trade, capitalism, peace and freedom are so impractical they have resulted in the highest standard of living in human history.

Libertarians are so inhumane, they insist on protecting basic human rights from government encroachment!

Libertarians are so illogical, they would write an attack piece about an ideology they clearly don’t understand after reading a few Wikipedia articles.

Libertarians might be guilty of “ravings which lack internal coherence.” Luckily for all of us, RJ Eskow is not!