Over at Culture11, John Schwenkler pours some cold water on the idea that, all other indicators aside, this is a libertarian moment:

The first thing to note is that there are many libertarianisms; and while they often go together, they don’t necessarily. Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate and Truther, is broadly a political libertarian, but he is certainly not a cultural libertarian. Cultural libertarianism, like its political sister, risks the same sort of reductionism: as political libertarianism often teeters uncomfortably close to anarchism, so cultural libertarianism leans towards libertinism (which, incidentally, is often confused with libertarianism, and thus leads to irrational hatred of libertarians from many conservative circles, even though they broadly agree on politics). Yet libertinism is a much easier trap to fall into than anarchism. Anarchy requires societal change, while libertinism only requires personal change.

Getting back to Schwenkler, the issue here is involved with the “liberating” force of technology, where we can quite literally enter different, almost entirely free worlds whose limits are dictated by your bandwith. What defines a “libertarian” moment — and more pertinently (and philosophically), is the perception of freedom more important than the actuality of freedom?

Taking this to its natural dystopic end, it implies a world of pink goo and Our Savior Ted. This doesn’t make the concern any less pertinent, though. For what if real political doesn’t result in a person’s sense of freedom or liberty? Conversely, suppose a society of technofiends feels more free in a world of WoW 5 and Call of Duty 12 that bans political parties. Who cares if there’s a federal curfew if no one wants to go out anyways? In fact, taking Schwenkler one step further, you might almost say that cultural libertarianism is hindering the cause of political liberty (or that a virtual liberty is hindering the cause of ‘actual’ liberty — whatever these incomplete terms mean).

Should libertarians be striving towards this latter world, or the former? Viscerally, striving towards a perception of liberty seems wrong, but I can’t quite figure out how to refute it.

As direct broadsides tend to do, I’ve been thinking a lot about Jillian’s post; specifically, I’m thinking about the repeated, huffy assertion from the Left that “Obama is not a socialist,” which while true, is also surprising in how vehemently such a notion is rejected.

For libertarianism proper, there is a certain end of Liberty. To reach this end, there are certain means that are proposed — repeal the PATRIOT Act, legalize medical marijuana, lower income tax rates, and such.

And while I just got off of a tirade against teleology (and I am still strongly against such narratives), to govern effectively you must have a broader vision of what the Polity should be. Failing to have broader goals leads to governing a la Tom Delay or Lyndon Johnson (what is the deal with Texas?), where the exercise of party power becomes more important than any political ideas. Call it Pragmatic Teleology, as paradoxical as that term may be. Or maybe, a Time-Relevant Teleology.

I don’t see this on either side. No single policy, be it health care or defense spending or “service” programs, should be an end in of itself. Obama’s platforms are means — but to what? What are we trying to get here? Simply overturning the “Bush legacy” is rather small, and still leaves us with a draconian drug war. Trying to be Sweden?

So to all those from either side, tell me — what is the equivalent to libertarianism’s Liberty? I think much of the concern about Obama (at least, my concern about Obama) is that I don’t know what he’s getting at. One day he’s preaching xenophobia circa 1890, the next day he’s urging forgiveness for former drug users (while appointing Eric F—ing Holder), but by the end of the week unveils a plan for “mandatory service.” Simultaneous columns call him a “pragmatist” and a “revolution.”  What does this all mean? And yes, I’ve read “The Audacity of Hope” — it had about as much cohesion as a Saltine in water.

So I’ll end this in the same way that I ended my last post on the matter. Social democrats, leftists (I try my best to not use the bastardization of the term “liberal”, which properly refers to the free-trade, anti-war policies of the Whigs), Republicans, and pragmatists the world around — what is it?

Over in Current Affairs, fellow editor Jillian McLaughlin has been doing some great, in-depth local reporting on a mini-scandal at Kalamazoo College (hooray, localism!). Reading over the transcript of the forgery mentioned in the piece, I was surprised and somewhat delighted by the parody on libertarians:

WHY I AM A LIBERTARIAN

American politics of today is dirty, biased, and agenda-driven.

The Republicans are looking out for private interests and the Democrats are helping abortionists and welfare brats. In this time of widespread corruption, we need to take a broader approach to things and focus our energies on one of the less-talked-about groups within the electorate:
no one.

Once we start solving the problems of no one, we will stop solving the problems of anyone, thus leaving everyone else to solve the
problems of anyone and allowing no one outside of everyone else to care about anyone. If this seems confusing, it’s because politics is
confusing. If it seems bad or wrong or false it’s because you’re a
dumbass and you don’t deserve any help or attention of any kind anyway.

So, to the American people, we say this: fuck you and your
dogshit ideals. If you believe in anything, maybe it’s because someone
has duped you into thinking like everyone else. You’d be wiser and much more respectable to just follow our tried-and-tested platform, which is nothing.

You know, this isn’t half-bad. There are very few problems that I think can be solved by the federal government –in fact, some guy named James Madison spelled out these problems in some document known as the Constitution, which was based on some archaic philosophy known as federalism. I think it’s like feudalism, but without the knights.

In all seriousness, the vast majority of the problems we encounter in life will be issues where government cannot truly help. The federal government cannot save our flailing relation, cannot give us a true sense of meaning and place in the world, cannot give me an “A” on my stats test, and cannot make me truly happy. Mankind has, and will, struggle with the issues over the entirety of its existence, no matter what form of government. Most libertarians (and people, when you think about it) try to find meaning in life outside of the government, which is something I highly recommend. Apparently, though, this is a philosophy worth mocking.

Politics is confusing. We haven’t had a chance to truly test out a platform. This is a time of widespread corruption. And yes, fuck you and your dogshit ideals. This is almost a manifesto.