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.