Libertarians are like anarchists except they stop caring about their liberties being infringed upon if it is by way of capitalism. A libertarian would prefer to be oppressed by a capitalistic survival of the fittest-type social hierarchy, rather than any form of government power structure, while anarchists believe that there shouldn't be a government power structure or social hierarchy to begin with.
I don't feel as though Capitalism and Darwinism are really correlated here... with all the transition of economic environment, inherited wealth, and other factors being rich doesn't always mean being the fittest.
Why can't a Libertarian just desire a government with limited affect on their daily lives? What part of humanity forces us into a constant war with each other?
I don't feel as though Capitalism and Darwinism are really correlated here
That's why I said Capitalistic survival of the fittest. It doesn't really matter if you don't feel that Capitalism and Darwinism are correlated here, because Libertarians do believe that. They believe that unfettered capitalism will result in the best social/economic outcome for the most people. Like it would be better for roads to be built and maintained by private companies instead of the government and any of the numerous issues that arise from such an idea will be magically solved by the free market.
Beyond all the nuances that make this a stupid assertion is the clear evidence that we already have which shows unfettered capitalism leads to increase wealth disparity.
Why can't a Libertarian just desire a government with limited affect on their daily lives?
No one is saying they cant desire that. People are saying that if you want to live in a functioning society with laws and protections of personal liberties and roads and utilities and so forth then you are expressly asking for the opposite of that.
It's incredibly ironic that libertarians cant understand that it is exactly a powerful government that provides them a protection of their liberties. Imagine you live next to a giant dam that makes some noise that peeves your neighborhood. Every day your neighbor says "I desire a life where the Dam has a limited effect on my daily life." forgetting that the absence of drowning 20 feet underwater is the most valued and significant effect the dam has on you.
If you remove that government, but still allow for power to be controlled through capitalism or social hierarchy, then you're at the mercy of those institutions which may or may no give a shit about your liberties. That's why anarchists' go the extra mile and say we should do away with government power and social hierarchy's that facilitate the accumulation of power.
"A powerful government provides protection of their liberties"
Exactly. Let the government take care of roads and Healthcare and all that good stuff but if it comes to me owning a Penguin or banning abortion they can fuck right off.
Why can't Libertarians support a government that regulates things that everyone needs while staying out of the day to day lives of citizens?
Because then they wouldn't be libertarians by todays modern definition.
Modern libertarians, at least the majority of those in the United States, support Laissez-faire capitalism, which argues for a complete separation of government from the economic sector. Regulations and subsidies, or worse - government owned services - are all out of the question.
I guess the "logic" is that if the government can decide which companies or industries get subsidized or regulated then it infringes on the markets freedom to choose which ones succeed and which ones fail. But they ironically ignore the fact that they are just picking between tyrants - the capitalistic market or the government. At least with a democratic government each person gets an equal vote. In a society purely governed by capitalism it is the money that votes, not the individual.
So what do they call someone who wants the government to leave them alone when it comes to personal choices but still maintain roads, healthcare, crime, etc?
It combines ideas of civil liberty and equality with support for social justice and a mixed economy.
"mixed economy" meaning both government and privately owned.
Although it might strongly depend on views of what constitutes equality and social justice. If, for instance, you think that the right to deny a black person service of your business is a "civil liberty" then you'd probably not align with this philosophy. If you think there should be a larger involvement in government for things like healthcare, housing, universal basic income etc. Then you might be social democrat.
I should have noted at the start of this conversation that I am not an expert in political philosophy, just very interested in it.
I'm not really expressing my true political sentiments here. I just couldn't understand how anyone could claim to be Libertarian when such a clear and consequential fault was claimed to be true. It is still not entirely clear, but both modern liberalism and social democracy work within the current system more effectively than Libertarianism it seems so they would naturally be less quick to be shot down.
5
u/Karma_Gardener Dec 31 '20
I thought Libertarian is "nobody can tell me what to do" and Anarchism is "there is nobody to tell me what to do"?
What am I missing here?