Libertarianism grew from fascism; libertarianism is the belief that the basic right, to which all rights ultimately reduce, is the right to property, so that the more property a person has, the more rights they possess, and a person who possesses no property (or, even worse, whose net worth is below zero because of debts) possesses no rights (other than to himself, which is worth less than nothing if he is in debt, so that serfdom or peonage should be his lot).
Samuel Freeman’s penetrating 29 September 2011 critical paper “Liberalism, Capitalism, and Libertarianism,” cited (page 49) a number of prominent libertarians, as saying such things as that, “Liberty is Property. ... The libertarian thesis is really the thesis that a right to our persons as our property is the sole fundamental right there is,” and as that, “there are no rights but property rights.” (This means, of course, that to be born an aristocrat is to be born with extensive rights, whereas to be born poor is to be born with little or no rights; i.e., that rights are proportional to property.) Freeman also cites libertarians saying that if a person sells himself into slavery, then the government should enforce the master’s right and the slave’s obligation in the master-slave relationship, regardless of how stupid or ignorant or desperate the slave’s “choice” had been to sign such an exploitative contract. (If he signed it, he’s considered a fool, and fascists consider fools to be not pitied, but rather despised.)
However, even these bolder modern libertarians would rather not discuss what they mean by “property.” It’s all they’ve got (since it’s the basis of all rights in their view); it’s defined by the laws, which come from the government; and so they don’t even want to understand it – they just want to “have” it (and not to think at all about the extent to which their ownership depends upon the prevailing legal system – i.e., upon the government).
However, this new generation of bold libertarians are perfectly willing to acknowledge their hatred of democracy. For example, the libertarian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe headlined at the libertarian website lewrockwell.com on 17 November 2000, “Down With Democracy,” and he wrote that, “One-man-one-vote combined with ‘free entry’ into government [the right to vote even if a citizen owns nothing but himself] – democracy – implies that every person and his personal property comes within reach of – and is up for grabs by – everyone else. ... It can be expected that majorities of the ‘have-nots’ will relentlessly try to enrich themselves at the expense of [the] minorities of the ‘haves.’ ... The rich are characteristically bright and industrious, and the poor typically dull, lazy, or both. ... As a result of subsidizing individuals because they are poor, there will be more poverty. In subsidizing people because they are unemployed, more unemployment will be created. ... In subsidizing the malingerers, the neurotics, the careless, the alcoholics, the drug addicts, the AIDS-infected, and the physically and mentally challenged, ... there will be more illness, malingering, neuroticism, carelessness, alcoholism, drug addiction, AIDS infection, and physical and mental retardation. By forcing non-criminals ... to pay for the imprisonment of criminals ... crime will increase. By forcing businesses, through ‘affirmative action’ (‘non-discrimination’) programs, to employ more women, homosexuals, blacks, or other ‘minorities’ than they would like to, there will be ... fewer employers, and fewer male, heterosexual, and white employment.”
Although that sounded remarkably like Adolf Hitler’s condemnations of democracy in Mein Kampf, it was actually a highly respected American libertarian who wrote this. In 2001, Hoppe published his DEMOCRACY: The God that Failed, which was considered a libertarian masterpiece. Hoppe unapologetically argued there that libertarianism and conservatism are one and the same – and that he wanted it, passionately: he hated democracy.
Before Ronald Reagan became President, the Kochs’ Reason interviewed him in their July 1975 issue, headlining “Inside Ronald Reagan,” and he said there: “I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. ... The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized [governmental – he wasn’t talking about corporate] authority or more individual freedom [for property], and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.” Hoppe wasn’t saying anything new. But he was being bolder, less “politic” or diplomatic, about it, than Reagan or other politicians.
On 30 August 2011, Michael Lind at salon.com headlined “Why Libertarians Apologize for Autocracy [dictatorship]: The experience of every democratic nation-state proves that libertarianism is incompatible with democracy.” He quoted Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek praising the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile (this was the very same Hayek who had stolen and made famous ALL’s equation socialism = communism = fascism; Hayek was now fawning over fascism, once it had finally returned to the world, in Pinochet’s Chile); and Lind also quoted Friedman’s own grandson, Patri Friedman (son of the prominent libertarian writer David Friedman), praising Hoppe’s works (and his father David’s) as convincing him that (in Patri’s words) “Democracy is rigged against libertarianism,” and that, “Democracy is not the answer” and must be replaced with libertarianism by forceful means. Lind then concluded: “Libertarianism really is incompatible with democracy.”
As for Milton Friedman himself, he was far more tactful than his grandson Patri. There is an undated youtube video of Milton, headlined “U S is not a democracy Milton Friedman,” in which he argues much like von Mises, against democracy, and simultaneously against violence. He says: “Nobody believes in democracy. ... You will find it hard to find anybody who will say that at [if] 55% of the people believe the other 45% of the people should be shot, that’s an appropriate exercise of democracy. [Notice here his virtual equation of ‘democracy’ with Germany during the Holocaust, etc., a slick trick that’s a lie designed to appeal to Jews and other minorities and make them fear democracy, even though the Nazis’ top vote was actually 44%, in 1933, not 55%, and the Nazis weren’t running on any platform of exterminating people, and they despised democracy like he did. The Holocaust resulted from a dictatorship, not from any democracy, despite Milton’s sly smear of democracy.] What I believe [in] is not a democracy but [in] an individual freedom in which individuals cooperate with one another, and in which there is an absence of coercion and violence. [Here, he turns toward a totalitarian ideal of unity in which everyone just happens to agree, which is not only difficult if not impossible to achieve, but which ignores the real question in politics, of what to do when that unrealistic ideal cannot be attained, and therefore some form of ‘coercion,’ if not even ‘violence,’ is actually necessary. Even a democracy requires police.] Now it turns out that democracy in the sense of majority voting is an effective means for achieving agreement on some things, on things which are not very important. [Here, he, like Hitler frequently did, demeans democracy as being petty. Again, he subtly uses Hitlerian argument, while pretending to promote the opposite of that.] Really important things we require much more than a simple majority. We require as close to unanimity as we can get.” Of course, that’s false: The most important political issues tend to be the most-fought-over ones, not the least-fought-over. Fascism is based upon lies, and Friedman was a master-liar. The real purpose of Friedman’s lies was to enable money to rule, instead of individuals’ votes to rule. He wanted people to hate government, in a democracy. The purpose is to enable the aristocracy to rule, and to negate the rights of the poor. The goal is to achieve that purpose with as little “coercion and violence” as possible. The ideal, in other words, is a passive public, who peacefully accept their exploitation by aristocrats. When policemen’s billy clubs crack the heads of striking workers, even aristocrats’ pacifist words can be just totalitarian lies.
So, I would say that "AProgressiveThinker" takes the PR for "libertarianism" as being libertarianism, and then tries to argue against it, but what is really needed is instead an accurate understanding of what libertarianism actually is.
I have written in draft a mini-book about this subject, and it documents that libertarianism originated from the same aristocrats who had planned a fascist coup d'etat to replace FDR with a dictator patterned upon Mussolini and Hitler: when their plan had to be aborted in 1934, they refocused upon a plan to sell fascism in democratic countries by rejiggering fascism and by renaming it when the military defeat of the fascist nations in WWII caused virtually everyone to detest fascism under its then-existing name. These people financed the rise of Friedrich von Hayek, Milton Friedman, and even arranged their Nobel prizes. If you are interested in seeing this 100-page manuscript (as a pdf or in the body of an email) and are willing to tell me your thoughts about it, I'll be happy to email it to you for your comments. Send your request to eric.zuesse@aol.com
= new reply since forum marked as read
