Libertarianism Supports Tyranny

Although many people might easily question the title of this article, however, a close examination of the realities and origins, philosophy and history, writings and propaganda, of Libertarianism would come to confirm what is contended. The main origins of this ideology that favors tendencies toward statism, injustice, corruption, and oppression are mainly two fold: English thinkers such as, e.g., John Locke, David Hume and Adam Smith as well as John Mill, John Stuart Mill, and the adherents of Manchesterian Liberalism; French thinkers such as, e.g., Voltaire, Rousseau, and the rest of the philosophes, as they were then called.

Few people today, however, know that Locke had once written in defense of the institution of slavery; Hume would have enjoyed it if the world were filled mainly with totally convinced atheists, such as himself and, of course, Voltaire; J. S. Mill had gravitated easily, during his lifetime, from a questionable defense of liberty that, however, ended in his assurance that Socialism was, in fact, really needed.

Almost no one today knows that Charles Dickens’ Scrooge (meaning prior to that character’s conversion experience) was meant as an overt attack upon supporters of Manchesterian Liberalism; Scrooge was not a 19th-century conservative, as is too often and, thus, wrongly thought or contended; he was a liberal, shocking as that concept may be to many (uninformed or uneducated) people.

More to the point, the basic and foundational subjectivism and relativism, meaning nominalism, in cognition of classical Liberalism still necessarily exists in both modern Liberalism, meaning Socialism (or collectivism in general) and neoclassical Liberalism or, better put, Libertarianism. Both the old and new Liberalism are, therefore, on the ideological Left of the political spectrum; it is known that Milton Friedman, for instance, had truly hated being called a conservative and really only preferred to be known as either a radical or, at least, a liberal (in the old sense) economist.

In some other contemporary terms of reference, when Roe v. Wade occurred in 1973, the vast majority of Libertarians openly and enthusiastically applauded this tremendously massive act of statism; the US Supreme Court, in effect, put itself, meaning the modern hyper-interventionist State, into the wombs of any/all pregnant American women forever.

To their everlasting credit, some few dissenting libertarians, such as, e.g., David Brudnoy , the Feminists for Life, etc., had yet recognized, quite clearly, that it was no true advancement of human liberty or Feminism to be glad about the extermination of human life, no matter how small and helpless. Most libertarians, however, in being true to their modernist ideology, greatly favor political interventionism, by the State, whenever nihilistic values, the Culture of Dearth, can be then much better promoted by such blatant acts of clear statism, as with, of course, abortion and sodomite “marriages.”

True Liberalism (supposedly) had once been, automatically, on the righteous side of those who were the obviously most defenseless and unable to even defend their own proper rights, liberties, and freedom against any State oppression, injustice, corruption, or tyranny. Babies in wombs were, however, evilly sacrificed on the forever subjectivist altar of a nihilistic ideology that, many assumed, claimed to want liberty and justice for all human beings, except for those, of course, deemed not worthy of even being allowed to live, to later exercise full rights as citizens.

The permanent ethical and moral gap in fundamental thinking that ought, logically, to forever separate true Libertarianism from genuine Conservatism was empirically revealed, meaning as the vast bulk of Libertarians freely chose to support this monumental enlargement of State power and activism, on a gigantic scale, used joyously and gladly for the statist-sanctioned killing of innocents.

For, perhaps, further significant confirmation and adamant reiteration, starting in the late 1990s, the case of Terri Schiavo revealed that the vast majority of these claimed lovers of liberty had vigorously sided with both Michael Schiavo and, of course, the rampant powers of the courts, again the known instrumentalities of the ever- enlarging forces of the modern supra-interventionist State, against the fundamental right to life.

The pro-statism and pro-death orientation of Libertarianism is, therefore, suitably logical given the marked tendency toward either agnosticism or atheism in matters of belief; it is, also, known that a fine line can, more than just sometimes, moreover, easily exist between libertinism and Libertarianism. It is known, however, that there have been those who thought that some kind of main fusion between Conservatism and neoclassical Liberalism/Libertarianism was possible and could, in fact, be realistically done; a man by the name of Frank S. Meyer had been prominent among such advocates of a fusionism in thought.

Such a fusionism (of a perverse nature) had come about, especially in the late 20th century and early 21st century, that was best manifested in Big Government Conservatism, though many libertarians would deny this reasonable and provable assertion, as is below well demonstrated.

What occurred was the desire to use government power, in a powerful manner, to supposedly favor a continuum of a conservative-cum-libertarian policy agenda, whereby the instrumentalities of the State could be transformed for “good” purposes or ends. This was mainly seen, for instance, in most of the political efforts of the Republican Party, in the early 21st century, in an issue truly dear to the hearts of genuine libertarians and, unfortunately, many conservatives as well. How so?

Although the Republicans, from 1994 to 2006, in the US Congress, and in the Presidency, in 2000 and 2004, had maintained basic political dominance, nothing substantive, meaning in a truly major way, was ever done to stop abortion-on demand in America; and, this was even after fairly conservative-oriented appointments were made to the US Supreme Court; but, abortion, of course, is a very sacred cause to libertarians and other such leftists.

Concerning the continued legality of and support for abortion-on-demand, both major political parties have, therefore, made totally certain that nothing would ever essentially change, in this entire country, regarding its availability; and, this can be manifestly seen to be a fact of reality for American politics, as Judy Brown and other right-to-life advocates found out, to their great regret, for having once trusted the leadership of the Republican Party for too many long years; they had then failed to see, repeatedly, that Libertarianism on this issue would always, in fact, trump any (supposed) Conservatism, even during these more recent past years.

Thus, the Republican Party, essentially speaking, had then controlled all three branches of the Federal (national) government but, nonetheless, did nothing genuinely definitive regarding the right-to-life cause, which speaks volumes in how actions (or inactions in this case) do genuinely speak louder than words.

The Big Government-backed cause of abortion-on-demand, favored enthusiastically and openly by libertarians (and many conservatives) with their truly statist-interventionist ideology, was, thus, absolutely maintained in this country. And, moreover, whenever there is any category of people, of American citizens, who are systematically denied their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, through any such deliberate and State-sanctioned extermination, there is the then (coexisting) existence of tyranny present in any country, inclusive of the United States of America.

Denial of the most fundamental right, the right to life itself, therefore, logically precludes everything else pertaining to a human life on earth. Libertarianism, thus, clearly supports tyranny. Q. E. D.