Is Libertarianism a form of Utopianism?

As most know I'm a libertarian, however I was watching a video about Libertarianism the other day and it mentioned that Libertarianism has never really been tried. This sparked an interesting thought... Libertarianism is supposed to be primarily about individualism and liberty, conversely, Socialism is about increasing government control over how people behave and how they do business, which inherently inhibits our liberties in the process.

We always talk about how Socialism and Communism go against human nature because they require force to make people behave a certain way, and free market capitalism is the natural form of economics. Yet if this is true why haven't we really put it to the test? Many different forms of Socialism and Communism have been tried with varying degrees of success and a lot of failure, but it seems minimizing government power never occurs to us.

I think this can be largely explained by human nature, our lust for power and our desire for security. Libertarians understand human nature and we know our beliefs have an aspect of Utopianism yet we believe in the underlying principles. Those in government will scarcely decide to give themselves less power, so our governments will always tend towards expansion, it's the slow creep of Socialism which can be observed in most nations of the world.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I think Libertarianism can be considered utopian as much as socialism can be, or any form of government for that matter, but like you said.

I think this can be largely explained by human nature, our lust for power and our desire for security.

It would only work if 100% of people agreed and I find that to be impossible. There will always be somebody that wants more, that will take advantage of others.

DP

a reply to: Jdubious

It would only work if 100% of people agreed and I find that to be impossible.

I think it's interesting though how the same thing applies to both Socialism and Libertarianism, they both aim to create a sort of utopia, they both go against human nature in different ways and they both only work if everyone agrees or force is used to make people comply. I'd never really thought about it that way before.

A lot of people don’t understand that libertarianism was originally on the left within the anarchist movement.

Also, horseshoe theory is real.

Anarchists, anarchocommunists, and libertarians all to varying degrees want a society without centralized gov, not hierarchical, mutual community to community and individual to individual equal interaction not based on force. Etc.

All three are ostensibly anti authoritarian.


a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Communism and Socialism is utopia for lazy peeps. Pure Capitalism is utopia for greedy bass turds.

All the rest try to mix it up a bit.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

In a way, yes.

And that was Frederick Hayek’s problem with conservatism. In an essay “Why I am Not a Conservative”, he said the best conservatism can do is be dragged around by progressive politics, with no real direction of its own.

Liberalism, by which he meant libertarianism (he still preferred the word liberal over libertarian) at least had a goal of liberty.

I guess a free society is sort of utopian, but unlike socialism and communism, there has yet to be a libertarian country, and thankfully, no record of failures as of yet.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Yes, it is.


Because it will never be realized.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I remain an anarchist at heart.....but I am also a realist and know that the one thing that prevents it is human nature.

Unless there is ever a significant step change in human nature and consciousness there will never be a truly anarchist or libertarian society.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14
A lot of people don’t understand that libertarianism was originally on the left within the anarchist movement.

Also, horseshoe theory is real.

Anarchists, anarchocommunists, and libertarians all to varying degrees want a society without centralized gov, not hierarchical, mutual community to community and individual to individual equal interaction not based on force. Etc.

All three are ostensibly anti authoritarian.


a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I took a test at a political site, and put me as libertarian anarchist, and showed me definitely on the left side of their little grid.

Now I’m constantly seeing, on this site, that “left” is the exact opposite of freedom.
Yet I’m no where near the “right” because I think they’re way too authoritative. Way too many rules.

Therefore, I’m really thinking that both sides on this site, likely hate me for my anti-authoritarian views, while they’re busy trying to convince some of us “leftists” that we are, what we’re not.
I hate being stuffed in a box, hate it even more when it’s the wrong box.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

If you read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein then it becomes somewhat obvious, especially the end of Atlas.

Both books envision small (limited) populations, small list of written rules, and large reliance upon unwritten (yet highly enforced) common customs and practices.

I can't quite visualize this working in a massive, multicultural population.

The idea of Political Correctness doesn't seem onerous to me, although it can obviously be distorted and manipulated by powerful special interest lobbies.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I remain an anarchist at heart.....but I am also a realist and know that the one thing that prevents it is human nature.

Unless there is ever a significant step change in human nature and consciousness there will never be a truly anarchist or libertarian society.

I’m also a big believer in live and let live, but you’re right about human nature.
One only has to look at the violent nature of far too many people. There’s always some control freak, losing control.

a reply to: pthena

The idea of Political Correctness doesn't seem onerous to me, although it can obviously be distorted and manipulated by powerful special interest lobbies.

People lose their jobs and social status because they said a joke, and now we all have to tippy-toe on eggshells. Political correctness is particularity burdensome.

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

anarchocommunists

This is a true example of Utopianism. We want to be free from government but we also want people to willingly share everything... lmao.

a reply to: MadLad

To quote Conan the Barbarian:

“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.”

Wouldn't it be nice if civilized people refrained from discourtesy amongst their co-workers? I suppose that is utopian thinking also.

originally posted by: pthena
a reply to: MadLad

To quote Conan the Barbarian:

“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.”

Wouldn't it be nice if civilized people refrained from discourtesy amongst their co-workers? I suppose that is utopian thinking also.

It’s more manners than anything. I think we can still advocate for manners without having to ruin their careers and hard work if they happen to deviate a little bit.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I think it has been experienced as it was essentially a Libertarian life back in the days before the cross country railroad.

Small towns had a Sheriff and there were federal marshals several. days ride away.

Most issues were handled locally through town meetings. Very small government interference.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You just described a classic liberal, which is the new libertarian.

Socialism only works if everyone either complies or is forced to comply. Forcing compliance is anathema to Libertarianism so it would never really work. Forcing others to believe or do something isn’t something a Libertarian would do.

To answer your question, yes it is a naive utopian view.

First and foremost, just like communists libertarians are making a primary logical mistake, that because THEY think a certain way and even act in a way that is conducive to their philosophy, therefore veryone does or can. Not everyone is ready or willing to work in collectivism and without private enterprise.

Not everyone is ready nor safe to take away government, police, force, etc.

Libertarianism is naive because it ignores thousands years of history wherein we need to have some authority and coercion, until humanity reaches some kind of new stage. Not only is much of the world at a stage of development where you need some strong authority for rule of law and safety, so are many individuals.

Furthermore, we need sensible regulations for financial institutes, labor protections, environment, etc.

The history of the world doesn’t support that companies won’t abuse these things without outside intervention.

We need some socialized investments, from roads to education to some kind of basic safety net.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder