What is libertarianism about and importantly what ought it be about? Libertarianism is similar to Anarchism in opposing statist structural oppression, yet is far more selective in terms of opposing other forms of structural oppression indeed.
The question therefore is why Libertarianism does not oppose structural oppression generally but tends to think that structural oppression is more or less acceptable as long as the state is not complicit therein?
Let us first consider the question of taxation. Taxation by government and profit by private corporation are highly similar in many ways whereby the authority in question retains a certain percentage. Taxation by government of course is more similar to the extraction of “protection money” by organized in that it may be enforced by threat of force and even violence. Many libertarians tend to be deliberately blind as to economic oppression just as many socialists tend to be deliberately blind as to statist oppression and similarly do many conservatives tend are blind about social structural oppression.
In short is democracy about finding usually peaceful means for not only opposing but indeed undoing structural oppression. How then did democracy become so complicit in bureaucracy? For example how did the European Project of Peace end up as a bureaucratic nightmare? The process was of course incremental over decades in that decision was added to decision in accumulating into the bureaucratic nightmare that is the European Union.
We need therefore consider how things could be otherwise. Libertarianism is typically conceived of as an economically conservative form of Anarchism and that certainly has some truth to it. But Libertarianism is not necessarily conservative or right-wing at all and usually has no interest whatsoever in reactionary social preservation but rather seeks creative chaos of virtue in self-realization.
In fact libertarianism has become the most advanced in a certain jurisdiction whose government professes to be left-wing rather than right-wing for everywhere else has libertarianism gotten stuck in the mud of discourse and bureaucracy. That very place is the Democratic Federation of Northern Syria (DFNS) the world’s first feminist state whose covert formal name is Femina. The democratic revolution of Femina has outlawed structural oppression although this is being gradually implemented as regards for example the gradual albeit far from slow introduction of ethical veganism in human society as energetically promoted by Femina without much publicity to speak of.
Libertarianism thus is the process of implementation of Anarchism. What does this mean? It means that Libertarianism is a practical approach to Anarchism within the framework of democracy much like Syndicalism is a practical approach to Anarchism within the framework of NGOs.
None of this is to deny that the state does good things and and is at least legitimized by important functions, needs indeed. Yet are those needs fulfilled? The answer is sometimes. Furthermore are these needs and functions typically carried out in a manner which causes significant statist structural oppression as well as legimitizes, enforces and upholds both social structural oppression and economic structural oppression indeed.
Libertarianism thus needs needs to reconfigure itself as the Anarchism of Virtue, meaning Freedom of Valor. Libertarianism is often naive about the responsibilities of liberty and often does not seem to understand that liberté oblige no less than noblesse oblige. Liberty without virtue is in fact not liberty at all but rather oppression in demeaningly reducing oneself in contemptible lowliness. What is lowliness, does it imply a classist distinction? It means that liberty without virtue is not liberty at all for liberty is a virtue and must therefore not be confused with social structural oppression and economic structural oppression.
Of course, no self-respecting libertarian would admit to defending structural oppression as would indeed no legitimate participant i democracy despite the undeniable discursive complicity in utterly redundant structural oppression by all streams of liberal democracy. The problem with multi-partisan democracy is however that we are all nominally united in opposition to structural oppression yet effectively condone and defend other forms of structural oppression than the ones that we oppose. This is in fact a common denominator as regards participants in democracy with the main exception being Anarchism which has remained distinctly impractical as well as “discreetly” yet systematically harassed, intimidated and persecuted by thoroughly criminal police intelligence agencies in all countries.
What is thus needed is a practical approach to the abolition of statist structural oppression much like we need practical approaches as regards the abolition of social structural oppression and economic structural oppression.
This brings us back to the question of statist bureaucracy as truly detested by libertarianism yet libertarians seem deliberately blind about the problem of private corporate bureaucracy which to the degree that it is legal is enforced by government and is hence for all practical purposes is an extension of government bureaucracy. This brings us to the question of structural oppression itself.
We need commence this investigation by asking what structural oppression “is”? Structural oppression could be described as social practices of a recurring nature that cause suffering. This definition implies that oppression is inherent in social relations in persons always being unequals in strength and weakness alike. Social relations are therefore inherently asymmetric in that these involve interpersonal asymmetries as stemming from interpersonal difference of individual idiosyncrasy in personhood as well as structural disparities. It needs be emphasized that not only is social structural oppression social (i.e. interpersonal) in character but so are statist structural oppression and economic structural oppression as well. Human structural oppression generally is of course above all discursive.
This brings us to the question of social relations themselves as variously described as culture, integrity, honor, space, society, economy, democracy etc. What characterizes social relationship of valor? In one word; virtue. What characterizes social relationship of oppression? In one word vice.
This brings to to the question of virtue and vice which usually in practical application are not as dichotomous as implied by the seemingly nominal nature of this word pair. This of course is not to imply that virtue ought not be dichotomous as towards vice, it certainly needs, must and ought indeed.
Democratic politics is nominally about promotion of virtue but typically in actual practice ends up as the promotion of vice. How is this so? This is simply due to conflation of virtue and vice much like ethics is conflated with morality and nobility is confused with culture generally.
Democratic politics is furthermore fundamentally confused, indeed profoundly so in chanting stereotypes rather than pursuing dialogue in virtue of pursuit of ethico-aesthetico-political wisdom. Participants in democracy are nominally united in terms of commitment to honesty in pursuit of virtue in opposition to structural oppression and so is democracy also in that sense the very essence of anarchism itself.
Yes democracy is the very practice of anarchism in opinion. But what if we were to devote ourselves to the question of virtue as underlying the question of democracy itself? For democracy is not merely reducible to its etymology of rule of the people, by the people and for the people. Rather needs it be emphasized that democracy without nobility in virtue is simple theatrical exercise in the macabre. Most dictatorships sport elected parliaments but these are merely to varying degrees facades for tyranny as is in fact liberal democracy itself to a significant extent as currently practiced.
Legitimate participants in democracy are nominally united in opposition to tyranny but do in practice end up as agents of tyranny themselves in that their proposals to end structural oppression de facto usually actually promotes structural oppression.
In order so as to end this cycle of tragedy in democracy need we consider that we need reinstitute norms of civility in democratic politics whereby we move to end structural oppression in public discourse without limiting public debate in terms of implying that certain matters must not be discussed. Structural repression is certainly not the way to end structural oppression for suppression is the very antithesis of the noble virtues of democracy.
If democracy thus is recovered by means of recognizing its noble nature can we also re-understand democracy as the practice of nobility in virtue of the people, by the people and for the people.
This brings us to the question of guardians as some libertarians wish to reduce democracy to oppressive guardians of patriarchy while others wish to abolish state guardians altogether. Both approaches are wrong as checks and balances are needed indeed in that checks and balances are the essence of ethico-democratic guardianship.
Yet we need defend the dignity of persons rather than the dignity of institutions. We need defend principle rather than bureaucracy. We need defend ethical axiom as opposed to mere paragraph of power. We need hence commence the labor of appropriation of democracy from cynicism. We need reject the Frankist political dialectics of cynical realism vs. naive idealism in favor of pursuit of noble virtues of democratic realism.
The calling of democracy is furthermore not defense of bureaucracy but rather commitment to small government by means of conceptual innovation, social innovation and technological innovation indeed. This means that the pursuit of small government must not be reduced to a zero sum game of base class jealousy whereby the wealthy envies the benefits of the non-wealthy but rather that ethical application of technology under ethical axiomatic law of noble virtue is the path to small government indeed.