Is Libertarianism = Divine Right of Kings?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

I was thinking. With a lifelong interest in politics, I am a third generation Democrat. My father was a union organizer. I'm no historian or economist. And I'll throw in a bit of reference to classical music and the reflection of a changing society through art. No quiz at the end...relax! :D

Libertarians think that the sacred "free market" and "invisible hand" of Adam Smith, will make the economy work. I take this to mean that a)rich people are morally superior to working stiffs, because of that Protestant idea of riches=favor with God; b) because of this, they will automatically "take care" of everybody else and the economy will prosper. Part of this is trickle-down economics, which we know doesn't work, and deregulation, and the Chicago School. I'm sure there's a whole propaganda industry of Leo Strauss and Milton Friedman's ideas.

The rich are greedy and they will NOT work to help any other part of society. They scream about burdensome regulations when they are just selfish. The libertarians just want to prop up a certain group of people and say that they are special, and the definition has to do with money, not instructions from God, but the effect is the same. Government is by the consent of the governed, and I guess that means they are basically a throwback to monarchy and a form of economic feudalism.

I decided this is another in the long list of excuses in history where one group asserts that it can rule over another group of people, because the controllers are special people who have this reason that they are superior.

This is the list I came up with:

Divine right of Kings: God said we can rule over the peons. Prevalent in Europe and Japan (still present in Japan). Church and state are merged.

Manifest Destiny: White Anglo-Saxon Americans are special and can conquer the Western Hemisphere and wipe out indigenous peoples and take their lands.

Monroe Doctrine: Because WASP Americans are special and anointed, we can meddle in the affairs of any country in the Western Hemisphere, using the justification of keeping the Europeans from expanding their empires further.

White Man's Burden: Term by Rudyard Kipling, describing colonists ruled by British people. British version of manifest destiny & imperialism.

Explicit racial/religious superiority: Hitler and the Nazis over non-Aryans. Whites/Christians over blacks/non-Christians in the U.S.

Religious ministers and popes: God said I can rule over the peons.

Religious subset, men over women: Saint Paul said for you to keep your mouths shut in church, so all males can rule females, because of the Bronze Age's understanding of sex roles.

Religious subset, converting heathens: God said I must convert you to Christianity. (The Great Commission). I think there is a similar command in Islam but I am not sure of this.

Parents over children: Also from the Bible, and from the "poisonous pedagogy" (the system of absolute obedience common in Europe and America described by Alice Miller, and which she says led to a nation of people who "were only following orders" under Hitler).

Superiority of the Aristocracy: I'm sure there's a name for this, in places where you have hereditary titles like England.

If you remember the movie "Amadeus", Mozart got in trouble over this. The Emperor told him he could not stage "The Marriage of Figaro" because it "casts the aristocracy in a bad light". Count Almaviva, whose household the whole play takes place in, is an amoral skirt-chaser who goes after the young servant girls, like Figaro's bride, Susanna.


In the same way, Don Giovanni was radical opera. Don Giovanni is an amoral skirt chaser who wrecks women's lives, and gets away with it. This was heady stuff in the years around the American and French revolutions, when the Enlightenment ideas were fresh.

Figaro was first produced in 1786; Don Giovanni in 1787.

So is this just the tendency of one group of people to exalt and follow another group of people for their moral guidance? This is a human tendency, for people to give their power over their lives to others, and look for answers outside themselves. So does this mean that libertarians are anti-democratic since they hate government?

I'd like to know your thoughts.

[RandomThoughts]

1. Divine right of kings has many meanings.

I do not believe that divine right of kings means superiority, but may mean it is for those people to try and do best for people around them, if they are given more of anything in life.


If a person believes in divine right, most of the time they use it for self gain, by claiming entitlement. Is that the reason for it, or is it for some other reason.


Libertarian rule by oligarchy is divine right of money, and then a claim to divine right of kings to justify others sufferings.

If you see someone you can help and choose not to.

Either you have to think they are suppose to be there, and you are suppose to be where you are.

Or you think they have to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Or you admit you make up reason to rationalize having more then you need when others have less then they need.


For most it is easier to believe they are suppose to be in some position so they do not have to see what they really are, and how they choose to use what they have.

[Skip Intro]

2. I think that Libertarians value freedom for all above all else.

Libertarians do not want the nation involved in foreign wars.

Libertarians believe every adult not to be property of the state, but property of and unto themselves.

I do not believe true Libertarians seek to dominate as a group or individually any other group or individual.

They believe in individual freedom.

I can see their argument on the free market. I can see where they are coming from. Where they lose me is their desire to abolish government-based help for the poor, or government-insured safeguards for the common man/woman. I don't get the idea of abolishing, for example, the FDA, or the CDC, or the CPA. This is a necessary function of government, imho. And we must have a social safety net so that the worst off among us do not die in the streets for want of food, shelter, or medical care. Libertarians do not believe these things should exist if they are forced by the government. Charity has been the most often used alternative in my arguments with Libertarians.

But you know, other than those things, and all they encompass, I really don't have that much of a disagreement with them. I certainly don't think their motives are to create or establish a ruling, privileged class, whether based on economic standing or race.

[ixion]

3. Well said...

I have many libertarian tendencies, and I agree with you that there needs to be framework to provide the essentials for a healthy society (roads, {affordable} health care, education, support for people who need it). I don't believe that the government should legislate morality (beyond violent crime), and I believe that they should stay out of people's lives when those people don't want government involvement. That's where I agree with them.

The so-called 'wars' of abstraction on 'terror' and (some) drugs has been used as a gateway to erode civil liberties and personal freedoms, while creating a massive revenue stream for the beltway well-connected.

It needs to stop.

[w8liftinglady]

5. having been a Randian Objectivist for the first 10 years,TRUE Libertarians believe exactly ...

what you said.
There is NO moral objective to their thinking.That's where I started having issues as a nurse and parent.I saw what happened to people that fell into the cracks...hell,I fell into the cracks.I had to leave the Libertarian party before I lost all of MY humanity.
I'm so glad I did.

[harun]

6. While that may be true for arm-chair Libertarians, what is important

is the "libertarians" who finance campaigns and eventually lead and make policy. Unfortunately many of them wear a libertarian mask that hides just another member of the upper class who exploits the other classes and hopes to keep things that way.

[w8liftinglady]

7. which is exactly what I have identified with the "Tea party"..."Limited Gov't Involvement"...unless

it benefits them...of course.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

4. kick