Oddbean

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.

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.

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 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).

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.

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.