It’s no secret that little “l” libertarians constantly argue over what real libertarianism is and isn’t. I am all for healthy debate and disagreements because they can be productive so long as people are engaged and participate civilly, but sometimes these arguments are a bit tedious and silly. I have witnessed a myriad of different perspectives that include, but are not limited to, drawing hard lines on social and/or economic principles that are the “real” libertarian ones. The textbook definition of libertarian is as follows:
An advocate or supporter of a political philosophy that advocates only minimal state intervention in the free market and the private lives of citizens.
A person who advocates civil liberty.
Correct me if I am wrong, but this basic definition does not draw lines on an economic system (yes, you can have a socialized worker co-operative and/or community in a free market if it is voluntary) or specific social issues. I am not taking a position in either direction. In fact, I am fairly neutral outside of favoring free trade between individuals.
It seems to me that one thing that is fairly consistent between the majority of libertarians is that we are abundantly aware of the inefficiencies of the state. Instead of uniting on this front, the factions fight about other issues that have no chance of being solved without winning more elections. This is where I think the big “L” Libertarian part comes into play. The smaller scale infighting between the factions in the LP is almost a carbon copy of the fighting between Republicans and Democrats. There are assholes in all the factions, but it seems like people pick their side and then pretend the other side is the main reason there are issues with the LP (sounds like how D’s and R’s pick a side and pretend the other side is the reason for all the problems in the USA). This is the primary reason I have not actually joined the party, despite having voted Libertarian. The arguments are almost identical, and it’s exhausting, to be completely honest. On top of that, it appears both “sides” are trying to gatekeep the other side to swing the party in the direction they favor. Being an outsider looking in, the issue that I see is that by doing this, current members are keeping people like me from joining.
Granted, maybe the LP does not want someone like me, and that’s fine as well. It makes no difference to me. Instead of trying to swing in votes by drawing attention to the failures of the state, let’s continue to focus on the things that we can not change from outside major political offices and keep ourselves divided along those lines. The other issue I see is that by stringently gatekeeping from both sides, you run the chance of not converting people. If I had taken one position or the other and refused meaningful conversations with other people, then I could not have reached half the people I have over the past couple of years. Just through conversations about the two parties, and other issues that I personally have with the state, I have seen people from both sides abandon party loyalty and identify as libertarian. It has nothing to do with me specifically but more to do with the fact that I didn’t attack their beliefs and just discussed my own.
In my humble opinion, the biggest threat to all of us is the continued growing power of the federal government and the use of big tech companies to help convince a large portion of the population that more government power is a good thing. I certainly don’t have all of the answers, but I think a unified libertarian movement would gain far more traction than trying to force the movement to suit one faction’s position over another’s. If you have made it this far, I appreciate your time. I wish you all the best!