I will try to respond with as much academic clarity as possible, to avoid any misunderstanding of exactly what I mean when I talk about uncontained libertarianism:

Libertarianism, while a vital force for individual freedom and resistance against tyranny, can become self-defeating and enable fascism when taken to an extreme and not constrained by a commitment to the common good. The libertarian focus on individual liberty and skepticism of collective action, when unmoored from any conception of public interest or social responsibility, can erode the very foundations of a free and open society.

By making epistemic arguments against the possibility or knowability of the common good, radical libertarianism can fuel a market fundamentalism that concentrates power in the hands of the wealthy, dismantles social protections, and undermines the capacity for democratic self-governance. This atomistic individualism creates a vacuum of meaning and solidarity that is easily exploited by fascist demagogues promising a return to unity and purpose through authoritarianism. Thus, an improperly contained libertarianism that rejects any notion of the public good or legitimate government can paradoxically enable a far greater threat to human freedom in the form of fascist tyranny. The libertarian impulse must be balanced with a commitment to the rule of law, democratic institutions, and some conception of our shared responsibilities and interests as a society. 

 Thank you. In your opinion, libertarianism, coexisting with a strong understanding and support for the common good, when such cooperation is required for the betterment of society as a whole, would be ideal. 

If you could indulge me, I’d like to provide an example of such a system and see if I am understanding you correctly.

Before European contact, the plains tribes of North America functioned as separate bands for most of the year. These were usually structured around familial ties. Individuals, or families, were free to leave a band whenever they wanted. They were not forced or bound to any particular band, and often times bands would not see eye to eye and families would move to another band. These bands were not hostile with each, as they were part of the same tribe/nation.

However, once a year the bands would put aside all of their differences and come together for a buffalo hunt. Their survival for the winter was dependent on their ability to work together for the common good. Each band and each family was given the same amount of food, to carry them through the winter. 

After the hunt, each band would go to their winter camp, and continue on with their independent lives, unhindered by the constraints of another band’s rules and expectations.

Is that what you had in mind? And it’s your belief that uncontained libertarianism is nullifying the idea of a “common good”. 

I can agree with this. Also, I would venture to say that by doing this they also bastardize the phrase “common good”, so that if one were to even bring up the idea in some circles they would be labeled a commie or socialist.l, and completely disregarded. 

 I think you’re mostly getting my idea. I think it’s also worth mentioning that in many ways, classical liberals like say Locke and Jefferson, were in their own ways, skeptical of libertarianism (even though they didn’t have a word for it) as a standalone ideological orientation, hence the fact they were social contract theorists — which by definition is trying to mediate individual rights against some conception of the common good. 

I’d go further and suggest that the emergence of state capacity libertarian and liberal nationalist thought are both re-evaluations of these insights by a bunch of former libertarianism and neoliberals who have recognized this very danger and are now trying to cope with it, in a contemporaneous conversation. 

 So the constraint that should be put on libertarianism is the social contract? Without it, you contend, fascists by their very nature would rule the land? 

 Kind of. And I think unconstrained libertarianism, particularly propertarian forms of libertarians are just outright fascist. See: Hans Hermann-Hoppe. 

 Got it. Thanks. Some things to think over. 

 In the west, I think that there has been a loss of trust in the idea that our governments are functioning for the common good. The idea that they have been tilted towards benefiting a few, at the expense of the many, is more believable and a much easier story to tell. And the funniest thing is that people who are directly benefiting from the corruption are elected to stop it. So where do we go from here? How do we reinstate the belief in our liberal institutions and the ideals of classical liberalism? 

 You have the play the political game and push for reform. I don’t know what else to say. Just throwing up your hands and excising yourself is exactly the kind of depoliticization that fascists pray on. 

 I hear ya. I think the exact same thing when someone says, “I don’t vote cause it doesn’t matter.” 

Apathy and nihilism are the fascists’ best tools. 

 Wow that is twisted, with a lot of leaps.  I'll summarize with:  Liberarianism -> Power imbalance -> Institutional failure -> Fascism -> Authoritarianism
You can correct me if I misunderstood.

Let's say libertarism leads to power imbalance. How is it the case that such an imbalance leads to insitutional failure?  Maybe the power imbalance put the power into the most capable hands?

Let's say power imbalance leads to institutional failure. How is it the case that such institutional failure leads to fascism?  This is the biggest leap you are making IMHO. 

 I think he lays out his reasoning better in this note:

nostr:note1nw8an0qmwl3rtqphtp976e7lzrut5arypcwcc77at5v9g459xsaqytccqu 

 I read that note already. I think it's the same thinking in different words. Here again are great leaps.  How does individuals persuing their own interests erode social bonds? It doesn't. Persuing my own individual interests demands social bonds. What is shared responsibility? Not defined. Hand waving. Being individuals "creates a vacuum of meaning?" Life is, always was, and always will be utterly meaningless, and that absolutely isn't a 'vacuum' of any sort, it is a recognition of a mistaken idea that doesn't need replacing, and so that imaginary "vaccum" cannot just be filled by anything he imagines will come in and opportunistically fill it (I know the Christians utterly disagree with me on this point but I can only say it how I see it). It is a "just-so" specifically constructed slippery slope.

Now if you want to say something concrete like "civility benefits us both, and many other people I know, let's enact some laws and collectively enforce them to keep out the riff raff", that is reasonable and actionable and local and is a kind of "collective good," but it is bottom-up, doesn't presume people who aren't involved are involved, etc. And it is different from the collective good over in the next valley. And the larger you grow that concept, the more meaningless it becomes (or so I think), even if there are proposals that are wildly popular throughout humanity like "let's not kill each other".  It's still kind of meaningless when Palestinians and Israelis and Russians and Ukrainians and Saudis and Houthis are not really on board. 

 I don’t want to put words in his mouth, but I believe he is saying when Libertarianism is taken to its extremes, wherein individuals believe that they do not need to rely on the social bonds that are necessary to cooperate on larger issues, that cant be resolved on an individual basis, this could lead to feelings of isolation and despondency, which could be filled by a despotic charismatic fascist.

I agree that there are many “could”and “leaps” in this reasoning. I don’t think seeking to pursue my individual interests necessitates that I give up on cooperating with others, if that cooperation is also in my best interests. But once again, I think he was arguing about the extremes of libertarianism. 

 I think this is true. But the problem is even worse than this. I think things like anarcho-capitalism are basically a kind of neo-feudalism that is obsessed with self-justifying itself around a conception of property rights maximalism that claims to be libertarians on a first principles basis, while only paying attention to initial conditions and then falling back into a cold transactional logic from there.  

 Well at least we agree that anarcho-capitalists don't have realistic ideas.

This might shock you, given my presumptions about your presumptions about me, but I'm even in favor of forcing people to wear masks or stay indoors if they are transmitting a deadly disease. You can't come to that idea from anarcho-capitalism. But you CAN come to it from the ground up, you don't have to reach it from the top down. 

 But I'm not trying to reach it from the top down. I don't know what you're insisting on a directionality. Individual and collective interests can be in tension with each other, and the maxima of the latter seems to be highly contingent on some concept of the former. As demonstrated by collective action problems (see: tragedy of the commons, uncaptured negative exterbalities, incentive structures for non-violent dispute resolutions like rule-of-law).  

 *externalities  

 Life is meaningless? 

 Oh sorry. No no, of course not!  Keep looking. 

 😂 for meaning? 

 This topic can actually be deeply distressing, especially if you were raised with a deep meaning implanted in your childhood mind. I have forgotten about that. But I used to look for meaning in religion, in buddhism, in science, anywhere. Existence is just weird, and maybe something explains that weirdness. Many people are on a spiritual path, searching their whole lives for the answer to "the question of the meaning of life, the universe, and everything."  It was for me, let's use a euphamism, "distressing" to unwind my mind and rebuild it on top of a basis which has no dependency on there existing any 'meaning' whatsoever.  So decades after that, life is pleasantly and normally meaningless to me without any vacuum that needs filling. You can make up your own meaning to life, but even that isn't being true to the meaninglessness at the root. You could say I grew out of it. 

 I never believed in meaning to life, yet I am happy. 

 I only have purpose, and that is whatever I choose.
Isn't that the point of freedom? 

 The idea that freedom means solely pursuing one's own chosen purpose, without regard for any broader social or ethical context, is a shallow and ultimately incoherent view. True freedom involves more than just individual choice - it requires taking responsibility for the consequences of our actions, recognizing our obligations to others and to society as a whole, and working to create the conditions that enable all people to pursue their own flourishing in a meaningful and sustainable way. 

My personal opinion, and what I'm gesturing towards in all my arguments here is that a genuine conception of freedom must be grounded in a sense of shared purpose and common good, not just isolated individual preferences. It's about balancing personal autonomy with social responsibility, and understanding that our own well-being is deeply interconnected with the well-being of our communities and institutions.  

 And I think that people are so detached from what it takes to survive, that they think they can go it alone. They lie to themselves that they are “sovereign”, “self sustainable” and free from any and interdependencies. There aren’t many people living alone, providing their own energy, food, medicine, clothing, and shelter. 

Sure, I want to be free and independent, but I also want to live in a world where I can trust my fellow man to work towards a set of shared interests and common goals. The other side of that coin doesn’t interest me. 

 Yeah, you can collapse this into a more flippant version of artiment: if you want to be self-sovereign, go live alone on an uninhabited island in the middle of the ocean.  

 *argument 

 You are lucky that you didn't have my mother. (Sorry mom, I love you and all but you know our differences...) 

 Forgive her before she dies or she will haunt you. 

 Ah, I see what you meant. 

 The key point is that when these principles are taken to an extreme and divorced from any consideration of the common good or the social and institutional prerequisites for a stable and just society, they can lead to outcomes that are deeply problematic and that can create the conditions for more authoritarian and even fascistic forms of politics to take root.

Here's how this dynamic might play out:

If the principle of "don't aggress" is interpreted in a highly individualistic and atomistic way, it can lead to a view of society as nothing more than a collection of isolated individuals, each pursuing their own interests without regard for others. This can erode social bonds, undermine a sense of shared responsibility, and create a vacuum of meaning and purpose that can be filled by more authoritarian and collectivist ideologies.

Similarly, an absolutist conception of private property rights, without any recognition of the broader social context in which those rights are embedded, can lead to extreme inequalities of wealth and power, and a sense of disenfranchisement and resentment among those who feel left behind. This can create fertile ground for populist and nationalist movements that promise to restore a sense of belonging and purpose, even at the cost of individual freedoms.

Moreover, if the state is seen as nothing more than a "night watchman" whose sole purpose is to protect individual rights and property, it may lack the capacity and legitimacy to address collective challenges and provide the public goods and services necessary for a healthy and stable society. This can lead to a breakdown of trust in public institutions and a further erosion of the social fabric, creating openings for more authoritarian forms of governance to fill the void.

To be clear, none of this is to suggest that the principles of individual rights, private property, and non-aggression are inherently fascistic or that they inevitably lead to authoritarianism. Rather, the point is that when these principles are taken to an extreme and abstracted from the broader social and political context in which they are necessarily embedded, they can have unintended and dangerous consequences.

This is why thinkers in the classical liberal tradition, and more recently those associated with "state capacity libertarianism" and "liberal nationalism," have emphasized the need to balance these principles with a strong conception of the common good and a recognition of the positive role that effective and accountable government can play in securing the conditions for individual freedom and social flourishing. 

 I sympathize with your viewpoint. People who believe that libertarian principles are like the simple rules in a snake and ladders game indeed take on a sort of arrogance, which can lead them to justify manipulation of the use of force in the end. I’m with Van Dun that the most foundational “ought” that can be derived from an “is”, is that humans ought to be reasonable; and hence that reasonable argumentation is the bedrock of any peaceful, orderly, convivial society. 

 I definitely don't think that ought can be derived from is. I am firmly in Hume's camp.  

 The fact you are insisting it must be bottoms up, is the ontological fallacy. The fact you think I'm arguing a transcendent objective truth about universal notion of a common good, is a straw man of my position. I'm not as sure you have a very strong grasp of these issues, as you seem to think you do.  

 Do you have suggested readings/authors related to “state capacity libertarianism" and "liberal nationalism” 

 Sounds like a chat GPT response packed with non-logical platitudes. In fact, many of Mike Brocks longer posts reads like an un-thinking GPT output. Will have to mute this nonsense. 

 Unfortunately Mike is dead right on this diagnosis. 

 Of course it has to be contained. The individual is not the only equity in a society. There must be a social interest considered, as a prerequisite to encouraging cooperation, rather than violence. 

 Fundamentally it is just every man for himself, no holds barred. Libertarianism is a naturally-occuring-to-most-people from-the-individual-up "deal" that many propose to everyone they interact with.  I'll respect you if you respect me, let's follow these ideals and we will both (or all) prosper.  Human rights is the same kind of things and goes hand-in-hand with libertarianism.  You start from the reality of us being violent animals, and you end up with civility and prosperity.

Thinking about a "social interest", from the top down, is backwards thinking. It puts the cart before the horse. It doesn't arise out of concepts that mirror reality, it arises out of concepts that other people implanted in us to control us.... or at least so I think. 

 I think you're engaged in a kind of ontological fallacy here, where you insist there's something necessary to directionality. The collective interest and the individual interest can simply be in tension, and mediate each other. Insisting on a simplistic grounding, as say praxeology tries to do, to me, is just weird. It just rejects any kind of dynamical notion around competing equities, and demands a universal starting point.  

 Ok. Then explain to me. What is the collective interest of these 3 rocks I have in front of me? 

 You might think it is in the collective interest that Palestinian children survive. I would also want that. But most Israelis think it is in the collective interest that Palestinians are exterminated (as far as I can gather, let's not derail the conversation into that example).

My point being that the principle of collective interest is not grounded in anything real, it is an assertion of desire, perhaps widely shared but nonetheless not a starting point.

People can only be sure of their own desires. Markets inform them about other people's desires. 

 It's just as "real" as any social construct. Like language. Which is once again, why I think you're engaged in a kind of ontological fallacy.  

 That's fine. I think you are the one suffering from an ontological fallacy so we are at loggerheads. We can end it here if you wish, I'm not motivated to press this issue.  In broad swathes with a lot of hand waving your initial argument about libertarianism and the "colletive good" is correct and I maybe I shouldn't nitpick into deep waters.  I wish you well. 

 How am I suffering from an ontological fallacy, exactly? I'm not the one insisting that the normative grounding of my ethics needs to be erased in any universalist natural rights theory. You're doing that. Not me.  

 I sense you are a fan of Rothbard, et al. -- who, quite frankly I have almost nothing good to say about.  

 I've heard that name many times. I've not read his stuff. 

 Dear Listeners:  Did I insist that "the normative grounding of [his] ethics needs to be erased"?  brockm: you can do what you please, good sir. I can only explain my beliefs and how they differ from yours.

You claim "common good" or "collective interest" exists (I infer this from your use of the word ontological). I claim that the concept is so messed up as to just lead to bad ideas. I might be wrong. I am only having these thoughts just now I never really pushed that lever this far before.  But we don't seem to have the same ideas about what that thing is, or at least we are not on the same page.

I claim that instead of "collective interest" what really exists is pairwise shared interests which we only discover for sure by interacting with each other. We have to run a bunch of tit-for-tat-with-forgiveness games with every person we encounter, and treat them each differently depending on our state machine we have for them. And presuming that a large swathe of people have the same interests is, well, quite presumptive and very disrespectful to them. It is what fascists and authoritarians do after all, isn't it?

I recently critiqued a U.N. poster about universal human rights. I don't have the same idea about "collective interest" or "common good" that the U.N. has. How can that be if there is a true "collective interest"?

I just think it is more productive to come at it from a different direction. But you can do as you like, I'm not trying to erase you. 

 I don't claim the common good exists in a foundationalist way. I am arguing that conception of it, is necessary for a stable society. You're the one that's insisting that any ethical foundation must be derived from purportedly self-evident truths or objective truths about individual rights. I make no such claim. Either about individual rights or collective rights.  

 On the first point:  point taken.  I agree, a shared concept of collective good is necessary for a stable society. And stable societies become unstable as they get larger, because it is harder and harder to have the same shared concept of what that is. Case in point: America.

On the second point: I'm not insisting I'm suggesting; I'm sharing my view. You can base your ethics however you see fit. 

 I think America has a surprisingly concordant view of the common good, when you look at opinion polls 60-70% of Americans generally agree on most things. There's an institutional failure occuring in the two-party system with minority constituency capture. An even bigger problem is one of the parties has collapsed into a personality cult.  

 Ok I'm going to go back to building a nostr client, but it is funny to hear that one of the parties is a personality cult. How many Trump supporters supported the vaccine he rushed through?  If they were in a cult, they wouldn't have mixed opinions about him. 

 I'm done with Donny, his tranny wife and spawn of satan son-in-law 

 Nah. They're kind of in a cult.  

 I think it is easier to make the argument that the other party is in some sort of anti-cult. 

 Dunno. When I hear members of my family and former friends referring to him as the most honest, down-to-earth politician of theirnlifetime, I just hear "I'm in a cult". Thats what my brain translates that to.  

 Well, maybe your family members are.

The conservatives I know think Trump has a mental illness (narcissism) that isn't too serious and people shouldn't hate on him for it. They think he lies a ton but mostly inconsequential lies that just make him feel better about himself.  And that because he is already pretty well off, he is less likely to be in it to skim off of the system (like Biden clearly is).  They think he really wants to make America better, and he wants the credit for it of course.  And they agree more with his vision than the alternate. And because he isn't fake like most politicians are, he just says what he thinks without much filter, they appreciate that and feel this kind of person is more trustworthy, isn't hiding some alternate agenda.  They are probably somewhat wrong on that last point though - he never locked Hillary up - but they are somewhat right too as he openly admitted 'you just say that to get elected.'

But your family members, well I can't say anything about them can I? 

 A large number of pundits claim a Trump presidency would be the end of everything.  They did this in 2020 that I remember the best, but probably are doing it again (I don't pay so much attention to internal American politics anymore).  When they say things like this I just hear "I have Trump derangement syndrome" That is what my brain translates that to. 

 I think Trump is a pretty dangerous figure. And if you think that's TDS, I'm not sure that I care.  

 Trump stands in opposition to extremely dangerous figures. So they have painted him as a dangerous figure. And you have sucked it up because it aligns with what you already wanted.

But really what use is further conversation between us? Are we coming to greater understandings? No. This just feels like Twitter. If I wanted Twitter I would go to x.com.  But I'm on nostr.  So I'm going to make my exit from this thread now. 

 Dangerous how? 

 for me are all politcan dangerous. 
all systems did not work so far,  without corruption. 
Maybe with the block chain technology can be in the future a system with only direct voting of the public.  

 Your friends and family are retarded.

Doesn’t mean the majority of the country is. 

 Fucking cultist, anti-cultists 💀 

 Your TDS is showing.

What a cunt. 

 Diversity is not our strength. 

 Tolerance promotes civility. But no, diversity is probably not a strength.  They used to say that a kingdom dividied against itself cannot stand. 

 It’s still true today 

 Who defines the "collective interest"? It always boils down to some douchebag in a suit paid for by his owner making that decision. If you take your assumption to its natural conclusion, theft is good and thiefs should always be in charge because (is/aught) it always leads there anyway. 

 Liberal democracy is supposed to be a political answer to that question.  

 Oh boy. The magic "democracy" word again. I'm out. 

 Yes. I'm unapologetically in favor of democracy. Bye, I guess.  

 Yup. 

Uncle Klaus wants you to eat ze bugs for “the greater good”. The big f-word is the merger of state and big corporations. Well, this is also the definition of WEF. 

You can naively believe uncle Klaus, or you can spend your time and energy organically helping build freedom tech to protect the smallest minority in the individual against totalitarians of any language, and culture. 

Most importantly Mike, rather than meaningless philosophical debates I see you buidling freedom tech every day. Keep buidling ser 🛠️💪. https://image.nostr.build/8838fec62f92f6b6a7d4a953ed8ad58ea04552e70d5876fce81554177bb92891.jpg  

 This might be the dumbest thing I've read all day, to be honest.  

 That says a lot.