Libertarian Realism, Part 1: Economics

I posted this to Reddit while ATS was down, but now we're back in business so here it is.

In my relatively short time on this planet I've held an array of different political beliefs. In my younger years I was very liberal or what you might call leftist, but insane leftist policies, censorship, mandates, etc, pushed me far to the right. Recently I have once again started to shift closer to the center because it's becoming very clear to me that this 2-sided political divide is the root cause of many problems in this world. We have very few centrists or realists in the realm of politics, virtually all "western" nations have two major political parties which represent the "left" and the "right".

Of course these political platforms differ slightly from nation to nation, but it's essentially the same two choices. The political candidates we get to vote for are often carefully selected and groomed over long periods of time for those leadership positions. It often feels like we only have the illusion of choice and not a real choice. Once elected, the people in government rarely allow the public to vote on any decisions they make behind closed doors. In other words the political "elite" basically have full and total control over our destiny because they control the laws, the money, everything.

We desperately need a new political party which can better represent those of us closer to the center, a party which can oppose the establishment politicians on both the left and right. Here I will lay out the framework for a political philosophy I call "Libertarian Realism" so that it may build the foundations for a "Realist Libertarian Party". To be a Realist is to place facts and logic above emotions, to accept reality for what it is and work to achieve realistic solutions which can benefit the most people while also considering things such as the environmental impact of our solutions.

To be a Libertarian is to hold sacred the virtues of individual liberty and freedom. We do not force people to trade their freedom for safety unless in the most dire circumstances where it's truly necessary. To be clear, the recent Covid-19 "pandemic" does not suffice as a reason to strip people of their medical autonomy. This same logic also applies to hyperbolic climate change predictions which say we're all going to die in a few years unless we give up our current way of life. That is also trading freedom for a false sense of security. We can care for the environment without becoming cave men.

The terms Liberal and Libertarian, as we use them today, have quite different meanings, but they also have many things in common. To be liberal is to believe that individuals have a right to express themselves any way they want, that we should all be treated equally. It's a respect for individual freedom, but it's been given a very leftist spin in modern times. However, a Liberal and Libertarian can still agree on many things, for example most agree that natural drugs like marijuana should be legal, that people should be treated as adults, free to choose what goes into their own bodies.

In recent times the term Libertarian has garnered some negative connotations, many people just think it means a free-speech-loving-capitalist who loves money more than they care about uplifting the lower classes. As a Libertarian I believe in increasing liberty and therefore prosperity for as many people as possible, but I'm also a Capitalist who believes a thriving economy is a more realistic way of increasing average living standards compared to socialist policies which are fundamentally about redistributing wealth. They put their faith in big government nanny states to bring them utopia.

Money is always at the core of politics, most people vote primarily based on who they think will benefit them most economically. That's why it frustrates me so immensely when I see so many people who are hypnotized by those on the left who act like they have the biggest hearts in the world, and their opposition are just heartless fat cats. Yet when we examine the most socialist places on Earth what do we see? We see mass suffering and poverty of course. We usually see rampant inflation because the bloated and ineffective government must create endless amounts of money to cover their massive spending.

This is something I don't like to talk about, but my childhood memories are full of violent fights between my parents, and these fights were always about money. My parents divorced when I was very young because the fights got way out of hand. Nothing really changed when my mother met a new guy, if anything they fought more often. Even today I still have friends with serious money problems and they fight often with their partners, at times I'm forced to watch these fights and it makes me feel so bad for their children because I know what it felt like when I was a kid listening to my parents fight.

In the past I've written about the many flaws in nanny state philosophies, and as a result many people label me some sort of evil elitist. Some degree of socialism is not a bad thing and can indeed be extremely beneficial when properly balanced with free market principles. Our taxes pay for many useful social services. The real problem is when we decide socialism works so well we trade all of our liberty in return for the so called safety provided by a nanny state. A realist understands that there is harmony in balance, and when we take things to one extreme or the other we get very bad results.

The most critical part of the political framework I propose here is the monetary policies. It cannot be overstated how important these policies will be for preventing the never ending expansion of government. These following policies will ensure that they cannot spend beyond their means, it will provide a clear budget and prevent politicians giving themselves obscene raises while everyone else suffers the effects of inflation. It should be clearly understood what causes inflation, and the primary reason is the literal inflation of the money supply when they create new money through the central bank.

Taxes form a large portion of Government revenue, but if they can't get enough tax revenue they can simply create more money using processes such as quantitative easing. Many people seem to think higher taxes are the solution to all our inequality problems, after all the rich have more than enough money to go around right? The problem is that businesses increase prices if they have higher taxes, not to mention they rarely raise taxes on just the most rich. If we cheer for higher taxes then the average person has less income remaining after paying taxes and we get a higher cost of living.

They already take a large chunk of profit from every single business, on top of that they tax individuals paid by those businesses, then there's goods and services taxes when we spend the money, capital gains taxes for investments, and any other possible tax they can think of. It's quite frankly an absurd amount of money siphoned to the government through taxes, yet it's still not enough money to cover government spending, so they create new money and dilute the value of the existing money. If they didn't create any new money then our currency would actually be deflationary and would increase in value.

Instead of increasing prices to keep up with inflation, businesses would have to gradually decrease prices to account for deflation. I'm not totally against the idea of fiat currency or the ability for a government to create new money, because they could create just enough new currency to keep the currency stable. My problem is when they create so much money it doesn't just cancel out any deflationary effects caused by economic growth, it actually devalues our currency at a fairly rapid pace. The recent "pandemic" caused them to print mind boggling amounts of money, hence the massive inflation.

There are natural limits to how much taxes can be increased before people riot and before businesses pack up shop. However there is no obvious limit to how much they can inflate the money supply. The Realist approach would be to enforce clear limits on money creation, it should only be used as a method to keep the currency stable, allowing wages and prices to remain stable over the long term. It should not be used as a method for the government to spend beyond their means. If you can't run an effective government after taking a large chunk of all business and individual income, you're doing something wrong.

It's easy to believe we can solve poverty just by creating more money or increasing taxes and redistributing that wealth, but it doesn't solve any of the root problems. It's easy to believe Capitalists like Trump are bad for the little guy, but it seems to me the middle class benefited immensely under Trump, he even achieved record low unemployment rates for minority groups. Lets also remember Trump donated his Presidential salary, that hardly seems like the act of a man who only cares about money. Just to be clear, I disagree with Trump on many things and don't view him as a Libertarian.

Personally, I think having one person at the helm of an entire nation puts too much pressure on that person and puts too much power into their hands. Instead there will be two representatives which make joint decisions and if they can't agree on an issue then they can ask the people to vote. Transparency and public involvement will be crucial to establishing trust and confidence, because what people really want is to have a voice in the process. We are constantly promised these things by politicians but we seem to be living under the same ancient systems controlled by the same ancient politicians.

If I had to choose leaders for this party I would probably choose Tulsi Gabbard and Rand Paul. Tulsi because she is a realist, she radiates rationality and wisdom, which causes her to be liked by people on both sides of the political aisle. She's a Democrat yet doesn't fear appearing on Fox News, she doesn't mind going against the mainstream leftist narrative when she thinks they are lying. That makes her more of a centrist than a leftist in my books. She is still a Liberal however, and in some ways that is good but in other ways it makes her an advocate of certain nanny state policies.

Rand is a true Libertarian and Republican, so he will uphold the principles of freedom while providing a necessary counterbalance to the leadership style of Tulsi. This is only the first part of what will be a multi-part proposal which will cover many different societal issues and political policies. For those who are thinking this party will be oriented towards right wing policies, you will soon come to see this political framework is far more liberal than you might first assume. There are many aspects I have yet to discuss which wont win over Conservative hearts, that's what being a centrist means.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder
Well thought out post. I always considered myself to be a classic liberal in the vein of Thomas Jefferson yet many people call me a conservative or republican.
Your right about having a realist at the helm seems all we get are dreamers/deceivers to choose from.

a reply to: americanbuffalo1

I recently played a game called Democracy 4 which is basically like a government simulator and it showed me just how liberal I actually am when I'm forced to make hard decisions and when I have to balance the economic costs of my actions with my ideologies. I tried to apply the most realist and libertarian policies that I could while also respecting free market philosophies, and I created a party which absolutely destroyed all the others in elections.

The game isn't exactly the most accurate simulation of economics but it's probably the most accurate I've ever seen. It's also clearly made by people who are left leaning, because many of the policies have effects which make no sense in reality. But I still managed to create a very successful center-right government with an extremely high approval rating and I managed to balance the United States budget, largely in part in part by cutting military spending.

That allowed me to divert some of that tax money into health care so the United States had a properly funded health system on par with other developed nations. It might seem like a fairly liberal thing to do but when you compare the current health system in the United States with other developed nations who spend less on war and more on health care, it's clear to see which countries have a better health system. I did all that while also substantially reducing taxes.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Are you involved in your local and state LPs?

Have you spoken with any MC peeps?

Or are you anti-MC?

a reply to: AutomateThis1v2

I should point out I'm not actually American, not sure I even know what LP and MC stand for, but I assume something to do with politics. I could never be a politician, I prefer the sciences. Unfortunately the people who make the best politicians often stay far away from politics.

Liberalism kind of a privilege while a Constitution a God Dammed right, eh?

Reminds me of when the Stoics got to Stoic, an were making cannabis, beastality, an what ever, 10 commandment written in stone Constitutional right for everyone to read.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: AutomateThis1v2

I should point out I'm not actually American, not sure I even know what LP and MC stand for, but I assume something to do with politics. I could never be a politician, I prefer the sciences. Unfortunately the people who make the best politicians often stay far away from politics.

Oh okay. Here in the US the LP is the Libertarian Party. The MC is the Mises Caucus. There is a rift between those who see themselves as "socialist libertarians" and those who are ascribe more to the Austrian economic model.

Both claim to want a free market, but disagree on how it should be done.

The socialist Libertarians here are more in the whole social justice pandering to minorities and pushing people out of the party who don't ascribe to the SJW mindset, while those in the Mises Caucus are more willing to talk work with other people and get them on the more Minarchist or Anarchist path to reduce government and push for more liberty.

I do like your thoughts, and we would appreciate having more people like you in the party.

I'd love to talk to you more sometime. Do you use Clubhouse or anything?

I will say that over here in the US not very mamy Libertarians like Rand Paul or Tulsi Gabbard.

A lot of Libertarians, especially those who like to believe they are socialist Libertarians are gatekeepers and purity testers. They will 100% refuse to vote for someone who is Democrat or Republican to the point where even if a politician used to be a Democrat or Republican, they will refuse to ever acknowledge that a former Democrat or Republican could ever be a Libertarian. They don't like Justin Amash either even though he is now a Libertarian, he used to be a Republican. Or even Ron Paul for that matter because he's a Repiblican.

They complain about ballot access laws and then get pissy when someone runs as a Republican because it's easier to get into office as a Republican than it will ever be anytime soon as a Libertarian.

We are making strides in local and state elections though.

The Libertarian Party is supposed to be a cause pushing to reduce authoritarianism and move closer to Minarchy or as close to Anarchy as is reasonable, but the amount of squabbling you see between the "left" and the "right" is still visibly apparent in the Libertarian Party.

The socialist Libertarians like to view themselves as continuing the socialist leftist ideas that are common in Europe, tend to push for globalism, and as much as they like to say they are anarcho-communist or anarcho-socialist they do a hell of a lot of simping for authoritarian measures regardless of how much they deny it.

They see the people who are Ron Paul, Justin Amash, Austrian economic supporters as conservative trash, Neo/Nazis, racists, homo/transphobes, and bigots in general, but for the most part they are baseless accusations and they will do anything to hold on to whatever useless or potential power they've wasted.

They've turned the party into a social club, and are mad that people who actually care about liberty are "taking over."

They dom't even put up a fight. They just make loud, egotistical departures.

Nick Sarwalk famously said the LP belongs to those who show up. Well, people started showing up and putting in work and they aren't the socialist Libertarians.

The socialist Libertarians here just complain and do nothing and then fail to try and understand why people are disastisfied with the stagnation and circle jerking over nothing really being done.

Those who are in the Mises Caucus or "Mises friendly" are showing up, actually putting in work, and putting their money where their mouth is.

There is a lot of hypocrisy coming from the "left-leaning" Libertarians. They accuse the MC members and those associated with them of all these terrible things, of violating the NAP, and yet they turn a blind eye to their own bad actors and things they do.

a reply to: AutomateThis1v2

The socialist Libertarians like to view themselves as continuing the socialist leftist ideas that are common in Europe, tend to push for globalism, and as much as they like to say they are anarcho-communist or anarcho-socialist they do a hell of a lot of simping for authoritarian measures regardless of how much they deny it.

The terms Libertarian and Socialist don't really go together imo. Socialists seem to think big government is the solution to everything, which erodes our liberty over time and goes against the core beliefs of a Libertarian. However I don't think Libertarians should seek the smallest possible government, they should seek the best balance between small and large, trimming off unnecessary fat while keeping or even expanding the parts of government which are useful. An effective and efficient government can immensely increase the standard of living, but a government which is too big or too small will not provide that same benefit.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I get ya. I'm an Anarchist myself, but you'd probably like hanging out with the Minarchists. They are like what you describe for the most part.

Politically speaking, anything outside of Center is absolutely insane. Just being honest reply to: ChaoticOrder

At first I thought like you, a third party would solve a lot of problems. Then I had an epiphany that led me in a different direction. One in which we don't need political parties at all. The basis for this is the idea that everyone votes for everything. All votes are votes by the people. Whether its nationwide, statewide, citywide, whatever. Whomever is affected by the law or program up for a vote gets to vote. This eliminates special interest groups, lobbying, kickbacks, all the things that make politicians untrustworthy.

The people themselves submit Bills for consideration. Someone says congress should not have the right to vote themselves a raise, it should be merit based, determined by their constituents. If their constituents think they earned a raise, they can have one. Otherwise, no. Someone says we should stop sending money to countries that hate us. If the people want to send them money the vote will show it. If they don't, put a stop payment on the check and close the account. All of the affected people vote on every issue. No lobbying, no insider deals, nothing but a real vote on a real issue.

A few years ago I would have said this was the best answer to our problems as a nation. Now, with fraud like we saw in the last election, I am not so sure. We need to be able to verify elections once and for all and know we got it right. When a polling place closes its doors hours before voting ends, then reopens at 2AM with hundreds of thousands of "found" ballots all for one candidate - that whole state should be removed from the official count until it can be verified as correct and true. If it cant be verified as 100% accurate - none of the votes count. You want your vote to count? Make sure your state runs a legitimate election with no fraud.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

I don't think letting the masses vote on everything is a particularly good idea. That type of pure democracy assumes the masses are well informed and will make the best decisions. I think the founding fathers of the US created a Republic for a reason, they wanted each state to have some autonomy instead of one big nation state controlled by mob rule. I think it's important to let people vote on some issues when politicians can't agree on any good solution, but I also know the MSM has way too much influence on how people think so it would really be them making all the decisions.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Thats a good point. But I made that statement with the understanding that people would accept the responsibility of educating themselves before voting in exchange for control of the issues. There would still be smaller votes, statewide, citywide, countywide, etc. If the majority vote for it they win. One of the things I like best about this is on issues like funding illegal aliens, would you vote for it if you knew for a fact you would be the one paying for it? Most people are worried about their own finances right now. This would take the power of the governing elite to inflict this financial responsibility upon us against our wishes. If you are willing to pay for it vote for it. If you aren't, vote against it.

An even more individualized response to issues like this would be the ability to approve a limited bill. If, for the sake of argument, 30% of the people who voted said they would pay for illegals themselves, go ahead and let them. Just fund 30% of what the bill would have originally funded. Its not the entire bill, but its something. The 30% who want to pay can pay. The people who don't want to pay don't have to. On issues like illegal immigration, its not always just the idea that people came here illegally, its being forced to fund them for doing so. Let that funding be voluntary and see how far it gets. If it vanishes in a puff of liberal disdain, it was never meant to be. And best of all, it cant be argued any more. They had their chance and couldn't get support from their own people. End of discussion.

That's not a bad idea.

In Portland Oregon we have something kind of similar to that called the "arts tax", which is enforced so leniently that it would be accurate to say that only those who feel like paying it are paying it.




My big gripe with libertarianism has always been minimum wage. I know some people are dumber than others, and I just don't feel like being excessively cruel to them.

I look at the "art of negotiation" as being similar in many ways to being skilled at martial arts. Its a power than can be used against depredation, but it can also be used in a manner that is predatory. Economies work better if the strong do not harm the weak, because that way people can focus on producing something, instead of putting all their effort into defending it.

If you own a store and a skilled martial artist challenges you to a duel : winner gets all the goods in your store, you can decline and you still get to keep all the goods in your store. (Even if you were probably going to lose the duel)

If this were done the way the martial artist wants, then everyone would have to focus all of their attention on martial arts, and nobody would put the needed amount of attention into producing anything.

Negotiation doesn't really produce anything directly, any more than martial arts does. It can smooth transactions, but it can also thwart them.

So instead of telling someone that they get paid nothing (or bare subsistence) if they can't negotiate, I would rather set a minimum amount you get even if you are a poor negotiator.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Just because there would be no minimum wage law doesn't mean that employers would be able to get away with paying dirt.

There's more to it than that. There would still be collectives, competition, and other factors driving pay up. The point is to put the power back into the every day people's hands and out of the government's.

If collective bargaining allowed in Libertarianism? Then the balance of negotiating power could potentially be distributed on both sides of the bargaining table. A large business has the advantage of being able to hire specialists to do its negotiating for it, whereas a private individual worker usually doesn't have the budget for that.



An entirely unregulated free market runs into more or less the same problems that a complete anarchy system runs into. Balance of power becomes the dominant pursuit of society. So much so that it begins to eclipse other endeavors. When might makes right, or bargaining position makes "just price", everyone focuses on obtaining might, or being in the best bargaining position. Instead of actual production.


When bargaining power is the key, corporations merge into the biggest glob they can get into. Sometimes that creates economy scale, but "economy of scale" isn't always "bigger is better". Sometimes a smaller scale is more efficient than a larger scale.

But when bargaining power is the driving concern, all you ever get is large.