Libertarians are smarter than liberals

Libertarians are smarter than liberals. Republicans are smarter than democrats. Libertarians the thought leadership of the conservative movement. Liberals and progressives have the space on the curve below libertarians and below conservatives. In other words, liberals are the thought leadership for the proles and the working class, and libertarians and classical liberal conservatives are the thought leadership for the middle classes.

Statistically, liberals are a minority (less than 18%), and libertarians are a minority (less than 10% but climbing). If conservatives and libertarians (the individual spectrum) are compared to progressives and liberals (the collective spectrum) the numbers are in the conservative favor. It’s the fact that libertarians do not self identify as conservatives, yet vote Republican that skew the numbers. This is one of the reasons why Republicans test smarter than Democrats – because libertarians vote republican not libertarian, just as liberals vote democrat not ‘socialist’ – because it’s not in their interest as a minority to waste their vote.

The republican economic program, which is a combination of conservative sentiments and libertarian economics and philosophy, simply appeals to more, smarter people.

Libertarians promote individual achievement. Liberals promote redistribution of other people’s production. Liberals tend to be verbal (and female) and conservatives tend to be spatial-temporal (and male). Liberals tend not to be historians, but exerperientialists, and conservatives tend to be historians. This reflects research into Time Preference, in which liberals have a shorter (higher) time horizon, and conservatives nave a longer (lower) time horizon, and these conflicts are immutable. In Jonathan Haidt’s work, which expands Machiavelli’s and Pareto’s works, liberals only consider two of the five social sentiments, while conservatives value all five equally. To some degree this is an expression of the ancient battle of the sexes.

The reason for the survey data’s (correct) conclusion that many very bright people develop redistributive and authoritarian philosophies was developed by Schumpeter, who said that these people PROFIT both materially and in social status by giving away that which they do not produce. They’re today’s church. Schumpeter said that Marx was wrong: that totalitarianism would not be brought about by the proletariat, but by ‘intellectuals’ who would use their privilege to undermine the system of capitalism that made their privilege possible, and that they would do it in exchange for social status.

The change in political tenor in the country is due to three factors: 1) immigration first of catholics, then of the third world. 2) the concentration of these people in urban areas where urbanites perceive a lower cost of production due to low opportunity costs. 3) the south’s abandonment of it’s civil war era bias against the republican party, changing conservative democrats into republicans. The parties had more philosophical breadth during the southern ‘rejection’ but now that the parties are roughly ideologically opposite, it is not possible to create a compromise position.

Now, this whole discussion tends to ignore the moderate but conservative-leaning majority who actually determine the outcome of elections.

And it should be noted that no civilization in history has survived urbanization and immigration. (The reason is too complicated for a blog posting.) A fact that is OK with liberals and horrid to conservatives.

5 responses to “Libertarians are smarter than liberals”

  1. Libertarianism is the right wing end of collectivism which is about private sector rent-seeking as opposed to the left wing end which is about public sector rent-seeking. It seeks to shift taxes off wealth and on anything but wealth and have it protected for free and its growth subsidized.

    That creation of wealth is taxed rather than possession of wealth is precisely what is wrong with the tax base. Taxing creation rather than possession is precisely backwards from the fundamental standpoint of proper statecraft.

    When you create something you are not costing society anything. When you possess something you are: the cost of defending your right to possess that thing.

    Government’s primary purpose in is the protection of those property rights hence a use fee is properly charged for this service.

    People who have vast property rights should pay for the existence of the entity that upholds those property rights just as they should pay more for property insurance.

    There is an exception: the homestead. Homesteads predate government property rights and are based on a head of household’s ability to defend his animal territory: Modest house and what might, in modern terms, be thought of as ‘the family business’ which at the dawn of the neolithic was basically just a small dwelling, a few acres of arable land and the tools/weapons needed to work/defend that homestead.

  2. Thank you for this post. I doubt we have much in common philosophically but I wish more Libertarian thinkers could get down to it and state the obvious, as you did.

    For the record, I agree that Libertarians have more historical and intellectual/rational currency to work with, generally speaking. In fact, a lot of your data in this post is fascinating to me. I’ve often wondered why Liberals don’t use more compelling historical and statistical evidence to further their beliefs. The answer is, of course, they don’t have so much to work with.

    Anyway, thanks for your thoughts!

Leave a Reply