The Fundamental Problem With Libertarianism

The best book on chess that Libertarians should read is The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank, which left me certain after many years that I was absolutely no Libertarian, and more than that, embarrassed to have ever been one."

What a clown. Libertarians are not revolutionary. Second, that book has nothing to do with chess, and Trotsky's quote was literal.

This doesn't even warrant a rebuttal, but I'll continue.

"Republican Presidents and legislators use Libertarian arguments to advance policy decisions which benefit business, then conveniently forget those same arguments when it comes to issues of government debt or unnecessary military spending."

Republicans and Libertarians share certain conservative values. For what it's worth, one point of libertarianism is that the government's first job is national defense.

Ugh, this stuff is awful.

"If politics were chess, Libertarians would be trying to win by holding up the pawn, saying "my pawn has a machine gun!", and making little pew-pew noises. It just doesn't work that way."

Politics is not chess. The writer's introductory quote associates revolution with chess. The writer may want to use an outline next time.

Here's a summary: The government uses Libertarian arguments for purported corrupt scheming between itself and big business. Thus, Libertarianism as a political ideology is, according to the writer's ham-handed "arguments," flawed.

I want my three minutes back; I could've made toast.

That's not libertarianism.

> They even conveniently forget the arguments when advancing business interests in ways which contradict every last iota of Libertarian political theory.

Sounds like they're doing it wrong.

> Frank quotes one of their policy wonks freely confessing that he constructs his reasoning with no concern for intellectual integrity or even internal consistency. The arguments are only a means to an end.

This is true of both sides, Republican and Democrat. Again, not Libertarianism.

> If you think it through, this should be enough to destroy Libertarianism for you.

Not at all. You've indicted current and past administrations. That in no way reflects on libertarianism or its principles.

> This means that if you want to achieve a Libertarian transformation of the United States, your only possible winning strategy is to get as much money from business as possible. But that means that the only way to get government out of business is to get business into government.

Whoa! Slow down there, chief. Nice straw man, there (not really). Business will be naturally attracted to libertarianism.

> In order to affect this revolutionary change, you would need to leverage a great deal of political momentum from campaign contributions originating with business interests. Then, once you had achieved a Libertarian transformation, you would need all the people with strong ties to business interests, who would owe their political careers to these strong ties, to turn their backs on their business allies.

The idea is not to lure constituents in by political favors. That is antithetical to libertarianism.

> It just doesn't work that way.

Yes, finally! Libertarianism is about principles, none of which have been addressed. All of the bad behavior -- real and hypothetical -- pointed out here in no way indicts libertarianism or its principles.

We are all as disgusted with the bad behavior as you are.