This seemed to be the final conclusion of a series of two videos made by Academic Agent, Issues with Libertarian arguments against Socialism, part 1 and part 2.
This seems to be best framed as a continuation of the argument in the right of if liberalism and Socialism are opposing forces, or merely different stages in the same process. This video is a furtherance of the arguments that they are part of the same process, though with a much more narrowly defined liberal side as libertarian, though the libertarian arguments against socialism seem somewhat indistinct from broader liberal arguments.
The videos are structured in a very, unnatural way because he's trying to boil everything into strict logical syllogisms. This produces stilted speech, but hopefully gains clarity of the points put forward. Plus, since he's working on a logic course, this also seems a way to exercise those muscles. He Structures a couple of core Libertarian arguments as such.
In the second video, he explores how, since they share similar world views and metaphysics, and thus moral intuitions, and thus a similar end state of the world, how the two are self reinforcing, shaping the world to the same end. Academic Agent summarizes it as thus:
1) When they want to relax a law for their (hedonistic) vision of society they call on their libertarian friends and support.
2) When they want to impose a law, typically to banish traditional morality, they call on their socialist friends for support.
Or, to summarize his argument a different way:
1) Libertarians come in to implement a liberal law
2) Which paves the way for the socialists to take things further and implement an illiberal law.
And, since the Libertarians and Socialists share a world visions, the libertarians likewise will never fight the socialist illiberal law all that hard, unlike a conservative illiberal law. The two given example are transgenderism and desegregation.
1) Libertarians fight for a liberal law to allow sex changes
2) This creates the space for socialists to implement the illiberal laws against misgendering.
1) Ending Jim Crow was Liberal.
2) state mandated desegregation was an illiberal (socialist) law.
Both the socialist and the Libertarian supported the first step of both programs, and while the libertarian may have some misgivings about the second, step, because they agree with the objectives, will not fight the socialists on them. Thus, through the implicit agreement on core beliefs between the Socialist and Libertarians, they work together to make sure that
1) Conservative losses are permanent
2) Socialist gains are permanent.
The second half of the video is then dedicated to why he thinks this set up is beneficial to the powers that be, and why, which strikes me as a less interesting part and much more simple wild speculation.
Overall, I think its an interesting point, and I think it does describe somewhat well the situation now, even if it doesn't describe a necessary situation. Hoppian libertarian for example does exist, and doesn't strike me as having nearly as much overlap with socialism as mainstream libertarianism does. However, the above overlap between socialists and libertarians as fellow travelers on different paths to the same destination, and libertarianisms unwillingness to go against most socialist power grabs does seem to line up with reality.
If nothing else, and I'm sure I fell into this during my libertarian phase as well, there seems to be a definite belief that one can have one's cake and eat it too. For example on the LBGT front, since that is currently on my mind, there are many libertarians on this site who seem to believe that they can destroy the Right's moral authority to allow gay marriage, but that the right can then assert its moral authority to stop pedophilia or infidelity's in marriage, or end single motherhood.
That, after killing something to get what they want on one issue, they can then bring it back to life to stop it on another issue. Which I'm afraid is generally not how things work.
This seems to be best framed as a continuation of the argument in the right of if liberalism and Socialism are opposing forces, or merely different stages in the same process. This video is a furtherance of the arguments that they are part of the same process, though with a much more narrowly defined liberal side as libertarian, though the libertarian arguments against socialism seem somewhat indistinct from broader liberal arguments.
The videos are structured in a very, unnatural way because he's trying to boil everything into strict logical syllogisms. This produces stilted speech, but hopefully gains clarity of the points put forward. Plus, since he's working on a logic course, this also seems a way to exercise those muscles. He Structures a couple of core Libertarian arguments as such.
Libertarian Argument from Utility
If increasing Material Prosperity is our aim, then free markets is the best means to achieve it.
Material Prosperity is our aim.
Therefore, we should pursue free markets.
Libertarian Argument from Equality
Socialism always increases Inequality
Inequality is Bad
Therefore, socialism is bad.
Libertarian Argument from Morality
If maximizing freedom is our aim, then free markets is the best method of achieving it.
Maximizing Freedom is our aim.
Therefore, we should pursue free markets.
He runs through some additional variations, and direct counters in the first video, to come to a conclusion that Libertarians and socialists are coming from very similar base moral foundations, that the critical ethical directives are to increase Material Prosperity, increase Equality, and Increase freedom. From this, he determines they both come from very similar metaphysical understanding of the world, both being enlightenment philosophies. Thus, they mostly merely disagree about the means, but both work towards the same theoretical ends.If increasing Material Prosperity is our aim, then free markets is the best means to achieve it.
Material Prosperity is our aim.
Therefore, we should pursue free markets.
Libertarian Argument from Equality
Socialism always increases Inequality
Inequality is Bad
Therefore, socialism is bad.
Libertarian Argument from Morality
If maximizing freedom is our aim, then free markets is the best method of achieving it.
Maximizing Freedom is our aim.
Therefore, we should pursue free markets.
In the second video, he explores how, since they share similar world views and metaphysics, and thus moral intuitions, and thus a similar end state of the world, how the two are self reinforcing, shaping the world to the same end. Academic Agent summarizes it as thus:
1) When they want to relax a law for their (hedonistic) vision of society they call on their libertarian friends and support.
2) When they want to impose a law, typically to banish traditional morality, they call on their socialist friends for support.
Or, to summarize his argument a different way:
1) Libertarians come in to implement a liberal law
2) Which paves the way for the socialists to take things further and implement an illiberal law.
And, since the Libertarians and Socialists share a world visions, the libertarians likewise will never fight the socialist illiberal law all that hard, unlike a conservative illiberal law. The two given example are transgenderism and desegregation.
1) Libertarians fight for a liberal law to allow sex changes
2) This creates the space for socialists to implement the illiberal laws against misgendering.
1) Ending Jim Crow was Liberal.
2) state mandated desegregation was an illiberal (socialist) law.
Both the socialist and the Libertarian supported the first step of both programs, and while the libertarian may have some misgivings about the second, step, because they agree with the objectives, will not fight the socialists on them. Thus, through the implicit agreement on core beliefs between the Socialist and Libertarians, they work together to make sure that
1) Conservative losses are permanent
2) Socialist gains are permanent.
The second half of the video is then dedicated to why he thinks this set up is beneficial to the powers that be, and why, which strikes me as a less interesting part and much more simple wild speculation.
Overall, I think its an interesting point, and I think it does describe somewhat well the situation now, even if it doesn't describe a necessary situation. Hoppian libertarian for example does exist, and doesn't strike me as having nearly as much overlap with socialism as mainstream libertarianism does. However, the above overlap between socialists and libertarians as fellow travelers on different paths to the same destination, and libertarianisms unwillingness to go against most socialist power grabs does seem to line up with reality.
If nothing else, and I'm sure I fell into this during my libertarian phase as well, there seems to be a definite belief that one can have one's cake and eat it too. For example on the LBGT front, since that is currently on my mind, there are many libertarians on this site who seem to believe that they can destroy the Right's moral authority to allow gay marriage, but that the right can then assert its moral authority to stop pedophilia or infidelity's in marriage, or end single motherhood.
That, after killing something to get what they want on one issue, they can then bring it back to life to stop it on another issue. Which I'm afraid is generally not how things work.