Disclaimer: I consider myself libertarian-ish, rather than The One True Libertarian.

I want to get things out of the way by saying this is not an attempt at „Betteridge’s law of headlines” but a serious consideration, a kind of introspection one should have on occasion. Also, a little bit of clickbait, to be sure.  The answer, off course, depends on how we define the words “libertarian” “delusional” and “are.” I also identify various levels: policies that may work if a country is libertarian and not if it is not; policies that would work if the whole world was libertarian, and not otherwise; and maybe policies that would not work regardless.

We often knock socialism because it does not consider the immutable parts of human nature. Those pesky millions of years of evolution. While I would want most people to be natural, instinctive libertarians, that is unfortunately not the case. I have made the argument in the past that, in order to get more liberty, you need to sell it to people, and that sometimes libertarians are not persuasive to people who are not instinctive libertarians. Just because something “just makes sense” to me, it does not mean it makes sense to others, and occasionally libertarians fall to the “feelings” justification of things, because liberty “feels right” to them.

I have observed recently, in various different arguments in the comments, that there are too many conservatives and not enough true libertarians around. This may or may not be true. There is a conservative bend to a good part of the comments. And none to others. I do not have percentages. I do not think this is necessarily bad. Something that helps towards being grounded in the real world is not having a bubble, a group think, a pardon the expression circle jerk. Having some variety of opinion. I do not believe purist libertarians hanging out only with other purist libertarians is the preferred outcome. If conservative leaning comments are a bit too many, the more libertarian inclined should comment more.

It can be fun to spend time in a group gloating about the superiority of one’s thoughts and how stupid the rest of the world is. This is, off course, fine. I do it myself. It helps one not lose it in the face of the absurdity of things (as long as one had it in the first place). But it does raise the question: is this all we want? If sufficiently black pilled, as I borderline am, there is off course the notion that liberty has no shot, might as well accept it and just employ sarcasm to make the pill go down easier. But this can lead to an excessively idealistic view that no longer accounts for the real world. It tickles the ego and gives one a feeling of moral superiority but little else. I like to occasionally think if something could be done for ol’ liberty, what could that realistically be? In any case, I like even the unachievable to not be beyond reality.

A good example of the above is, for me, is the open borders debate. While many libertarians hold open border views, I am not one of them. This is one element I find to be delusional, in the current world geopolitical context. I cannot see how bringing in undifferentiated masses of people with completely different world views will not utterly wreck any liberty loving society. Not to go down the path of far-right dog-whistle, but I get a whiff of the magic dirt theory.

There are other libertarians who oppose open borders with various reasons. The most oft employed is this is incompatible with the welfare state. Which is true. As a European, it is also incompatible with being the citizen of a political union that does it’s best to deprive the people of most forms of self-defense while the police do not protect said citizens. In a gun toting libertarian country, at least you could shoot the fuckers who only come with mischief in mind. Though it can be argued that you do not want to live in a country where you constantly have to shoot criminals, and I am not sure how much some would be deterred from coming in the first place by this. But many would be I suppose. Overall vetting is easier I would say.

I see additional problems with open borders. A certain society has a limited capacity of absorbing newcomers, and many potential newcomers will not be sufficiently deterred, they will think somehow, I will make it. And I fear the ones deterred would be the ones a country would rather have immigrate. This will lead to inevitable conflict. Absorb I mean both as infrastructure and housing, and culturally. As much as libertarians want to ignore this, people tend to want to maintain certain cultural elements in their community. Liberty is a cultural element to preserve as well.

Furthermore, a libertarian country bringing in a large number of authoritarians would be overwhelmed, as would a low crime society which imports large numbers of criminals. If you don’t want to just shoot all violent offenders, you need to be able to deport undesirables, and without border controls you cannot prevent them from simply coming back. Unless a libertarian society can simply deter those people from coming in the first place, you need borders. And I don’t think it can, in the present context. In conclusion, culture matters and must be accounted for.

Open borders are, off course, an example. Libertarianism should have two sides: a desired outcome in which you aim high, and a plausible process for getting there, as baby steps are sometimes needed. Open borders are a no go in the short term. Zero taxes are a no go in the short term. I believe many pension systems are deeply immoral, but they cannot all be canceled starting tomorrow. Also, some clear solutions for problems must be at least sketched out. Too many libertarians say get government out of the way and people will solve every problem, without any notion of how. They just will. Liberty will just fix things. Many socialists (starting with the Karlmeister himself) say the same: we get True Socialism and it will solve all problems, without saying how. Now not every detail is needed, but a broad outline. I do believe liberty solves a lot, but am ready to articulate how. And one must keep in mind, bad things will still happen, and problems will still exist. Libertarianism just gets an obstacle to a solution out of the way – government.

Sometimes, gradualists are attacked by purist for not being libertarian enough. Though keep in mind, many liberties were taken away gradually, it works better that way, make people take a step not a leap. Maybe getting them back is the same.  I have said in the past that it is a tough balancing act, how much you can bend principles without breaking them. Some say not at all, but completely rigid principles may not work in real world scenarios. Like in structural engineering, you need to have some tolerances and some flexible parts to absorb some shocks. I do not have a clean solution for this.

I hear some libertarians say we are strongest when we stick to clear deontological principles instead of various lines of argument including data, stats, history. I do not believe this is always the case. One must evaluate on a case-by-case basis. Non-libertarians do not hold these principles by default and are unconvinced, they need to be persuaded in other ways so they end up embracing the principles. Then again, going back to open borders, I do not see a compelling principle for that myself, and was unconvinced by libertarian arguments for open borders.

A system made by humans will need constant work to keep it going. And it will be a constant struggle between principles and some degree of practicality. Any system made by people can be unmade by people. The Lysander Spooner Enjoyer will speak of the failure of the US constitution. I find this a bit silly, on occasion. Nothing made in the 18th century will preserve liberty in the 21st if current people don’t care to uphold freedom. There is no system that will last by itself, from inertia.

As a non-anarchist, I include anarchy in the delusional category, at least in the current technological and cultural environment. I like Micky Malice as much as the next guy, and he is a fun troll, but he does not make a compelling case for me. And I do not mean moral cases for anarchy, as much as practical solutions.

Anarchists will criticize minarchy because if you have a government, it will inevitably grow. As stated above, a system will not last in a certain form by itself. But by the same token, looking at the world today, anarchy will inevitably develop a government, as all world was anarchy once. Though this depends on definition. Is a tribe listening to the tribal chief anarchy? Anarchists point to some usually marginal areas as examples of anarchy, bits of Somalia, medieval Iceland, Zomia, etc. Yes, those areas were anarchic at times, more or less. Because they were somewhat marginal. Most areas were not. Even today one can go off grid in the mountains and live somewhat anarchically. But as I am not one who wants that, I am more concerned about increasing liberty in current mainstream societies.

I do not really believe in major breakthroughs for liberty unfortunately. But if they are to come, the need to come in a fashion that is gradual and persuasive to a significant number of people. Just saying “taxation is theft,” true as it may be, will not accomplish much.

To get to the point, before I Curtis Yarvin myself into a twenty-page post (by the way if you had read Thomas Paine and de Maistre you would know it has nothing to do with what I am saying). Should a libertarian blog have as much variety as possible of people – as long as they are not pure trolls – or stick to the purity? I believe the former, as it is good to have notions challenged on occasion. An echo chamber is no fun. If I want to hear my opinions mirrored back at me, I read my own posts. Also, this being a long post and assuming most people skim it, shout out to whomever reads this sentence.

I may have misunderstood the situation, but it seemed some people leave the comments if they seem too unlibertarian to them. That only leads to an echo chamber of those who stay. But if everyone agrees with everyone, there are few interesting conversations. And this is how the communists win.

Anarchists and open-borderites can make their case, even if in a minority in the comments, for example. You think I am wrong? Let me have it. You disagree libertarianism can be delusional? I’m all ears. Are you of the opinion of purist or nothing – Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus? Do tell. Red, black, white pilled? Let’s hear.

We have room for plenty of people as long as they are ehm… glib. Anarchist, minarchists, cosmos, yokels, paleo this, paleo that, cryptids, conservatives, liberals and whatever SugarFree is supposed to be. Glibertarians without adjectives, let’s say.

With all that being said, I have to say we could use a little more positivity here either way. Even if that is delusional and the world really is all doom and gloom. Finally, Belgian beer still sucks.