> And libertarianism itself doesn't say anything about making money... there are plenty of "hippie libertarians" who don't give a shit about making money.
And yet... there aren't a lot of women or minorities in the libertarian movement, and despite your 'hippie' comment, most of the voices are from people with well-paying jobs.
Libertarianism doesn't mention money per se, but the effect of it is that people who already have money and network effects don't have to share their bounty.
Hell, I remember arguing with one libertarian who was crystal clear on property rights, and that property could never be taken away if you didn't sell it yourself; the government had no right to take land (yadda yadda, Zero Aggression Principle) and any land transfers after that are moot because it would have been taken by force.
Okay, says I, then give your property back to the Native American tribe it was taken from. The rhetoric then changed to 'oh, I could only give it to a person who could show that they owned the exact plot of land that I had'. What, the specific plot of land that is only described by the entity that violently took it? That communal ownership that was tribal lands meant that somehow you could claim individual ownership over it anyway?
This is what libertarianism means to me, and to a lot of what you deride as 'statists'. It's a lot of superficially nice-sounding rhetoric, which boils down to "I get to keep all my stuff, and don't have to share. So what if my bounty is built on the backs of others, my stuff is my stuff".
"I get to keep all my stuff, and don't have to share. So what if my bounty is built on the backs of others, my stuff is my stuff".
OTOH, I'd say it's closer to "I'm happy to share with others, as long as I do it on my own terms, without somebody threatening me into it, and furthermore, even if I don't 'share', I contribute to the overall good simply by participating as a productive member of the economy". Consider what Adam Smith had to say:
"But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow-citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon it entirely. The charity of well-disposed people, indeed, supplies him with the whole fund of his subsistence. But though this principle ultimately provides him with all the necessaries of life which he has occasion for, it neither does nor can provide him with them as he has occasion for them. The greater part of his occasional wants are supplied in the same manner as those of other people, by treaty, by barter, and by purchase. With the money which one man gives him he purchases food. The old clothes which another bestows upon him he exchanges for other old clothes which suit him better, or for lodging, or for food, or for money, with which he can buy either food, clothes, or lodging, as he has occasion."
Now that's not to say that there aren't Libertarians out there with a "fuck you, got mine" attitude. Then again, there are people with that attitude who aren't Libertarians as well.
What happens when 'my own terms' are heavily asymmetric in the speaker's own favour? How often would 'my own terms' be against the speaker's own favour?
We've also been through times when people "contributed to the overall good simply by participating as productive members of the economy". It was awful, and is why we have welfare programs these days. Private charity and/or trickle-down economics just do not cut the mustard, especially for individuals with chronic or ongoing problems.
> But though this principle ultimately provides [the beggar] with all the necessaries of life which he has occasion for
If you define 'necessities of life' as merely 'keeps a heartbeat going', then that paragraph will probably make sense to you. Most people would also consider shelter against the cold, clothes that fit and are in good order, and regular food as being necessities, none of which are needed to keep a heartbeat.
The other thing is that people's own self-interest is rarely thought about in the long-term. It takes a lot of education to plan out far ahead, which is one of the reasons why the wealthy stay wealthy. People aren't the perfectly informed, perfectly rational actors that these kind of paragraphs (and libertarian ideology) suggest.
And yet... there aren't a lot of women or minorities in the libertarian movement, and despite your 'hippie' comment, most of the voices are from people with well-paying jobs.
Libertarianism doesn't mention money per se, but the effect of it is that people who already have money and network effects don't have to share their bounty.
Hell, I remember arguing with one libertarian who was crystal clear on property rights, and that property could never be taken away if you didn't sell it yourself; the government had no right to take land (yadda yadda, Zero Aggression Principle) and any land transfers after that are moot because it would have been taken by force.
Okay, says I, then give your property back to the Native American tribe it was taken from. The rhetoric then changed to 'oh, I could only give it to a person who could show that they owned the exact plot of land that I had'. What, the specific plot of land that is only described by the entity that violently took it? That communal ownership that was tribal lands meant that somehow you could claim individual ownership over it anyway?
This is what libertarianism means to me, and to a lot of what you deride as 'statists'. It's a lot of superficially nice-sounding rhetoric, which boils down to "I get to keep all my stuff, and don't have to share. So what if my bounty is built on the backs of others, my stuff is my stuff".