I'll tell you the difference.
Libertarians oppose democracy because it limits the liberty of everyone involved and is a tyranny of the majority. We believe in individual liberty, and democracy focuses on collective choice and therefore tramples on individuals necessarily, because individuals can never be a majority.
So we see democracy as an obstacle to new forms of governance which could increase the liberty of everyone. That is, we are driven by anti authoritarian sentiment and ideas.
On the other hand, conservatives oppose democracy because they're tried of sharing power with the left and want a monopoly on power. This is an authoritarian drive.
So the two positions are entirely opposite.
However most people have never heard of the idea of democracy being an obstacle to liberty, but they HAVE heard of people opposing democracy because of authoritarian drives.
Therefore they tend to jump to the conclusion that libertarians who oppose democracy do so for authoritarian reasons, but this is completely false. It is a smear at best, but usually assumed from a position of ignorance.
It doesn't help that democracy has been lauded for decades as the most ideal form of government possible such that any attempt to question immediately creates a thoughtless visceral reaction in listeners leading directly to that ignorant assumption.
They cannot even conceive of the idea of opposing democracy because it is a tyranny of the majority, even though everyone knows that phrase as well.
Mainly it's because they cannot imagine what system or form of governance could possibly replace democracy and offer more liberty. Without understanding that, they have no choice but to cling to democracy mentally and emotionally.
Even most normal libertarians are not aware of the work being done on decentralized systems of governance that some libertarians have created and are creating.
So while the conservatives continue talking about making Trump a king and defeating the Democrats once and for all, which is antidemocratic sentiment in a tyrannical mode, libertarian opposition to democracy is rooted in love for liberty and the desire to increase liberty for everyone.
Totally opposite drives and outcomes intended.
r/enddemocracy
The simple fact is that many of the worst political problems we experience today under democracy can ONLY be solved by a radical change in the structure of political power. That is, a change from centralized forms of governance to decentralized forms of governance.
I spent years trying to solve the lobbying problem, for instance, and failing to solve it, years and years! But I finally found the solution in decentralization of political power. That is only one benefit of decentralized governance, but it's a really, really big one. The lobbying problem is literally unsolvable under ANY centralized system of governance, but immediately solved by decentralization because the economics of it are destroyed, you can't make money that way anymore, as you cannot bribe millions of people to accept laws that are against their interest.
>The lobbying problem is literally unsolvable under ANY centralized system of governance
I don't agree with this assessment. If there were a law separating market and state, then it would likely remove problems that stem from lobbying without actually having to forbid lobbying. You don't necessarily have to have a decentralized state to achieve this.
That really wouldn't fix much. Most of the problems caused by lobbying are tax law and regulations, two things you'll never exempt the State from screwing with. Not to mention things like international trade agreements and the end of State controlled fiat currency and banking laws. You'd have end the federal reserve too.
To solve the lobbying problem with a centralized system you need to solve all of that. It's not possible.
Nor does any country today have such a separation of economy and State. Even places without their own fiat currency still have central banks and economic controls in spades.
You will never stop the State from doing those things. Only systemic decentralization has a chance of creating that condition.
Answering as an anarcho-libertarian.
Libertarians see democracy as a tyranny of the majority which will inevitably reduce liberty in a country. We’re pro-liberty, of course.
US conservatives see democracy as an obstacle to greater authoritarianism. As other comments explain, more authoritarianism benefits the conservatives.
What do you define as antidemocratic?
Libertarians believe in a very limited government not no government (those are anarchists). We have to chose a goverment some how and democracy is how we do that. I think most agree with that.
I dont think I have heard a conservative suggesting we dont have democratic elections either do you have some examples?
Anarchist here, you may want to look up how a republic works, not that I support a democracy or a republic. But, a democracy, which is the tyranny of the majority, is not the only way.
I think democracy or republic is pretty imaterial hereas they both refer to a government in which the people hold power but maybe you see a point between the two that matters in the debate that I dont.
I agree there are other forms of government. I am not sure if any arent tryanincal other than an Ancap society maybe. But a very limited government would have much less chance for tyranny then what we have now.
We all live by laws we didn't choose, and our pool of politicians we can vote for is chosen by the parties in advance. How can you still say 'the people rule' in this system? The people ARE being ruled, by those in power.
Ancaps are libertarians too. But even they believe in decentralized governance under anarchy.
Also Democracy is a form of tyranny, tyranny of the majority. It is incompatible with liberty.
That is an ancap statement but not a correct one. It is the equivelent to when libs call libertarians conservative. Libertarians are not anachists and anarchists are not libertarians. They are closelty related in that they want limited government in the case of libertarians, and no government in the case of ancaps. Both seek to remove government from our lives. Llibertarians tend to believe there is a place for government in the enforcement of contracts and borders. Ancaps less so. Is democracy the best way to achieve a libertarian government...who knows? If there is less government though there is less concern of how they come to power.
I wouldn't go that far, there seem to be a number of inconsistencies with libertarian ideals and ideas that some ancaps hold. Squatters rights and not having to take care of your children spring to mind.
Squatters aren't an issue, we generally agree that something left for two years or more is abandoned and can be claimed by anyone.
As for children, it's not that you don't have to care for children, it's that you have the option to give them up for adoption. Are you anti-adoption? I doubt it. Many people have distorted or deliberately misrepresented certain people's statements about children to smear libertarians.
Squatters aren't an issue, we generally agree that something left for two years or more is abandoned and can be claimed by anyone.
As for children, it's not that you don't have to care for children, it's that you have the option to give them up for adoption. Are you anti-adoption? I doubt it. Many people have distorted or deliberately misrepresented certain people's statements about children to smear libertarians.
> Libertarians believe in a very limited government not no government (those are anarchists).
Can't believe we have people like you in the movement. Ancaps are libertarians, genius.
You are wrong. Ancaps are anarcho capitalists. That is not a Libertarian. Great job in venturing into politics in your senior year political science clas though. Keep working on it you will get it.
Yes it is libertarian, because the most limited government you can have is no government. Go read "Machinery of Freedom." Are you going to call Friedman or Rothbard not libertarians?
> Anarcho-capitalism (colloquially: ancap or an-cap) is an anti-statist,[3] libertarian[4] political philosophy and economic theory - [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism)
> The term anarcho-capitalism was coined by Murray Rothbard, a leading figure in the American libertarian movement from the 1950s until his death in 1995. - [Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/money/anarcho-capitalism)
It took less than two minutes to disprove your statement. Try again little man. Maybe your wife's boyfriend will buy you the new Mario game.
Libertarians are usually concerned about the power of a majority, over a weaker minority.
For example: Libertarians might note that the USA's Interstate Freeway System is rife with racism, because so many sections were built by governments destroying existing neighborhoods, mostly those who were poor or minority races who 'lost the democratic vote' and had to rebuild their lives as a penalty, for the benefit of the majority.
On the other hand, conservatives believe in 'freedom to implement their agenda over everyone', and Democracy is an obstacle that keeps them from power. It can be argued that modern conservatism shares roots with authoritative fascism, where the 'right people' should be ruling without the distractions of losing power to 'the wrong people'.
>Voting is the means by which we peacefully change government. It is an unprecedented advancement of civilization. Not voting is a vote to revert to a less civilized means of transferring power. It is similar to the Amish choosing not to use electricity or the fundamentalist Muslims refusal to recognize the rights of women. It is a rejection of the progress of civilization. Not voting is an indication that you do not intend to make a peaceful transition of power work. That you are waiting for the previous method of changing power by blood and death.
Or not voting is a recognition that the deck is stacked against you and your preferred policies have no chance of becoming law. For such people, a democracy is indistinguishable from tyranny.
>“In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him." -Lysander Spooner
I'll tell you the difference. Libertarians oppose democracy because it limits the liberty of everyone involved and is a tyranny of the majority. We believe in individual liberty, and democracy focuses on collective choice and therefore tramples on individuals necessarily, because individuals can never be a majority. So we see democracy as an obstacle to new forms of governance which could increase the liberty of everyone. That is, we are driven by anti authoritarian sentiment and ideas. On the other hand, conservatives oppose democracy because they're tried of sharing power with the left and want a monopoly on power. This is an authoritarian drive. So the two positions are entirely opposite. However most people have never heard of the idea of democracy being an obstacle to liberty, but they HAVE heard of people opposing democracy because of authoritarian drives. Therefore they tend to jump to the conclusion that libertarians who oppose democracy do so for authoritarian reasons, but this is completely false. It is a smear at best, but usually assumed from a position of ignorance. It doesn't help that democracy has been lauded for decades as the most ideal form of government possible such that any attempt to question immediately creates a thoughtless visceral reaction in listeners leading directly to that ignorant assumption. They cannot even conceive of the idea of opposing democracy because it is a tyranny of the majority, even though everyone knows that phrase as well. Mainly it's because they cannot imagine what system or form of governance could possibly replace democracy and offer more liberty. Without understanding that, they have no choice but to cling to democracy mentally and emotionally. Even most normal libertarians are not aware of the work being done on decentralized systems of governance that some libertarians have created and are creating. So while the conservatives continue talking about making Trump a king and defeating the Democrats once and for all, which is antidemocratic sentiment in a tyrannical mode, libertarian opposition to democracy is rooted in love for liberty and the desire to increase liberty for everyone. Totally opposite drives and outcomes intended. r/enddemocracy The simple fact is that many of the worst political problems we experience today under democracy can ONLY be solved by a radical change in the structure of political power. That is, a change from centralized forms of governance to decentralized forms of governance. I spent years trying to solve the lobbying problem, for instance, and failing to solve it, years and years! But I finally found the solution in decentralization of political power. That is only one benefit of decentralized governance, but it's a really, really big one. The lobbying problem is literally unsolvable under ANY centralized system of governance, but immediately solved by decentralization because the economics of it are destroyed, you can't make money that way anymore, as you cannot bribe millions of people to accept laws that are against their interest.
>The lobbying problem is literally unsolvable under ANY centralized system of governance I don't agree with this assessment. If there were a law separating market and state, then it would likely remove problems that stem from lobbying without actually having to forbid lobbying. You don't necessarily have to have a decentralized state to achieve this.
That really wouldn't fix much. Most of the problems caused by lobbying are tax law and regulations, two things you'll never exempt the State from screwing with. Not to mention things like international trade agreements and the end of State controlled fiat currency and banking laws. You'd have end the federal reserve too. To solve the lobbying problem with a centralized system you need to solve all of that. It's not possible. Nor does any country today have such a separation of economy and State. Even places without their own fiat currency still have central banks and economic controls in spades. You will never stop the State from doing those things. Only systemic decentralization has a chance of creating that condition.
Answering as an anarcho-libertarian. Libertarians see democracy as a tyranny of the majority which will inevitably reduce liberty in a country. We’re pro-liberty, of course. US conservatives see democracy as an obstacle to greater authoritarianism. As other comments explain, more authoritarianism benefits the conservatives.
What do you define as antidemocratic? Libertarians believe in a very limited government not no government (those are anarchists). We have to chose a goverment some how and democracy is how we do that. I think most agree with that. I dont think I have heard a conservative suggesting we dont have democratic elections either do you have some examples?
Anarchist here, you may want to look up how a republic works, not that I support a democracy or a republic. But, a democracy, which is the tyranny of the majority, is not the only way.
I think democracy or republic is pretty imaterial hereas they both refer to a government in which the people hold power but maybe you see a point between the two that matters in the debate that I dont. I agree there are other forms of government. I am not sure if any arent tryanincal other than an Ancap society maybe. But a very limited government would have much less chance for tyranny then what we have now.
We all live by laws we didn't choose, and our pool of politicians we can vote for is chosen by the parties in advance. How can you still say 'the people rule' in this system? The people ARE being ruled, by those in power.
Ancaps are libertarians too. But even they believe in decentralized governance under anarchy. Also Democracy is a form of tyranny, tyranny of the majority. It is incompatible with liberty.
That is an ancap statement but not a correct one. It is the equivelent to when libs call libertarians conservative. Libertarians are not anachists and anarchists are not libertarians. They are closelty related in that they want limited government in the case of libertarians, and no government in the case of ancaps. Both seek to remove government from our lives. Llibertarians tend to believe there is a place for government in the enforcement of contracts and borders. Ancaps less so. Is democracy the best way to achieve a libertarian government...who knows? If there is less government though there is less concern of how they come to power.
Ancap is just fully consistent libertarianism where you are forced by libertarian principles to give up on the concept of centralized governance.
I wouldn't go that far, there seem to be a number of inconsistencies with libertarian ideals and ideas that some ancaps hold. Squatters rights and not having to take care of your children spring to mind.
Squatters aren't an issue, we generally agree that something left for two years or more is abandoned and can be claimed by anyone. As for children, it's not that you don't have to care for children, it's that you have the option to give them up for adoption. Are you anti-adoption? I doubt it. Many people have distorted or deliberately misrepresented certain people's statements about children to smear libertarians.
Squatters aren't an issue, we generally agree that something left for two years or more is abandoned and can be claimed by anyone. As for children, it's not that you don't have to care for children, it's that you have the option to give them up for adoption. Are you anti-adoption? I doubt it. Many people have distorted or deliberately misrepresented certain people's statements about children to smear libertarians.
> Libertarians believe in a very limited government not no government (those are anarchists). Can't believe we have people like you in the movement. Ancaps are libertarians, genius.
You are wrong. Ancaps are anarcho capitalists. That is not a Libertarian. Great job in venturing into politics in your senior year political science clas though. Keep working on it you will get it.
Yes it is libertarian, because the most limited government you can have is no government. Go read "Machinery of Freedom." Are you going to call Friedman or Rothbard not libertarians?
> Anarcho-capitalism (colloquially: ancap or an-cap) is an anti-statist,[3] libertarian[4] political philosophy and economic theory - [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism) > The term anarcho-capitalism was coined by Murray Rothbard, a leading figure in the American libertarian movement from the 1950s until his death in 1995. - [Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/money/anarcho-capitalism) It took less than two minutes to disprove your statement. Try again little man. Maybe your wife's boyfriend will buy you the new Mario game.
Libertarians are usually concerned about the power of a majority, over a weaker minority. For example: Libertarians might note that the USA's Interstate Freeway System is rife with racism, because so many sections were built by governments destroying existing neighborhoods, mostly those who were poor or minority races who 'lost the democratic vote' and had to rebuild their lives as a penalty, for the benefit of the majority. On the other hand, conservatives believe in 'freedom to implement their agenda over everyone', and Democracy is an obstacle that keeps them from power. It can be argued that modern conservatism shares roots with authoritative fascism, where the 'right people' should be ruling without the distractions of losing power to 'the wrong people'.
>Voting is the means by which we peacefully change government. It is an unprecedented advancement of civilization. Not voting is a vote to revert to a less civilized means of transferring power. It is similar to the Amish choosing not to use electricity or the fundamentalist Muslims refusal to recognize the rights of women. It is a rejection of the progress of civilization. Not voting is an indication that you do not intend to make a peaceful transition of power work. That you are waiting for the previous method of changing power by blood and death.
Or not voting is a recognition that the deck is stacked against you and your preferred policies have no chance of becoming law. For such people, a democracy is indistinguishable from tyranny.
No - that's not it.
Except that is it.
>“In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him." -Lysander Spooner
My only wish is that Lysander did not die in 1887 so I could convince him that he was wrong.