I know that a huge number of pseudo-libertarians have appeared in our movement

Pro-lifers advocating for the ban of abortions, pedo-hysterics advocating for the ban of consensual intercourse with minors, and there are even freaks pushing for a “new Russian Pinochet.” The second class is the most delusional, of course. And it is the most numerous. While the first and third can be dealt with by simply distancing oneself from them, here we have a situation where the hydra of pedo-hysteria has embedded itself so deeply into the womb of the libertarian movement that it is practically impossible to extract. What are your options for action?

Inglikament Artzebantovsky-Bukht

You have listed three categories of people, of which the first and third would like to change the status quo (currently abortions are legal, and communists are not being thrown from helicopters into the ocean), while the second would wish to maintain it (voluntary intercourse with minors is already restricted). Libertarians are conducting a public campaign to change many things in society, and therefore need very broad public support. But the preferences of different people will inevitably differ, and the more actively you fight for the purity of the ranks, the less support you will have.

In this regard, I would like to recommend reading a post in an interesting channel run by anarchists who clearly have leftism in their history but have somewhat outgrown it (subscribe, by the way, the channel is good). The post analyzes behavioral strategies in conflict for a broad expansive social movement versus a hermetic sect. It notes a curious feature: expansive expansion is usually accompanied by fairly peaceful rhetoric, whereas sectarians are extremely aggressive in their rhetoric, even though their composition and numbers remain stagnant.

The libertarian movement is currently on the rise, so it will inevitably attract various freaks. There is no need to waste energy on internal sectarianism; it is more useful to focus on the unifying traits of your worldview. As for the pedo-hysteria, you can shrug your shoulders and say that personally you do not understand how one can distrust the personal preferences of teenagers so much and approve of state violence for victimless crimes, yet you are ready to cooperate with conservatives on the topic of lowering taxes and many other issues. This is a callback to my recent post, where I fantasized about how hypothetical American libertarians, without having a majority in Congress, nevertheless set the agenda and pass their laws by exploiting the contradictions between socialists and conservatives.

In short, if you have signed up for politics, be more flexible; unite around common interests, and you will have plenty of time to fight once you are in the parliament of the Beautiful Russia of the Future discussing a bill to abolish the age of consent. If you manage to gain broad enough support on this issue, you won’t need a helicopter.

When libertarians come to power, will they immediately legalize sex with children and the sale of heroin?

Anonymous question

If we are considering the scenario where “libertarians come to power,” then the following picture emerges: in a more or less liberal state, a government has appeared through more or less democratic means that declares its goal to be the transition to a minarchist state.

It is difficult to say what such a government would do immediately and what it would do later. It is clear that reforms must be carried out as quickly as possible, but the speed will largely be determined by the level of trust granted to this minarchist government.

Since this trust is not absolute, it is important not to waste it on insignificant things, as someone like Yushchenko did after the Orange Revolution.

I would start with the following measures:

  • immediate decriminalization of the use and possession of all drugs, decriminalization of the sale of soft drugs, and the rehabilitation of all those convicted under the decriminalized articles. This would significantly reduce the burden on prisons, police, investigators, and courts, but would not give my opponents any serious leverage, as the decriminalization of soft drugs is a global trend approved by the UN.
  • dissolution of all organizations ending in “-nadzor” (oversight agencies).
  • abolition of a host of insignificant but administratively complex taxes and fees: transport tax, state duties, Platon, property tax, and all export and import duties.
  • immediate withdrawal of troops from Syria, Ukraine, Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia.

And if my government manages not only to pull all this off quickly but also to remain in power, then it will be possible to deal with less urgent matters, such as abolishing the age of consent and decriminalizing the sale of hard drugs, but this would still be a lower priority than, for example, the abolition of VAT, judicial reform, and many other things.

Now, if we are talking not about a minarchist government, but about an evolutionary transition to ancap, bypassing the minarchism stage, then the term “come to power” is simply incorrect.

And what about the age of consent? Are all libertarians really pedophiles?

Anonymous question

The age of consent is simply an arbitrarily chosen age from which the state allows a “yes” answer to be considered “yes” without punishment; in other words, it is a crude and expensive-to-maintain crutch for common sense. In the absence of a state, nothing prevents a person from independently relying on common sense and independently weighing the consequences of their actions.

As for a “no” answer, libertarianism at no age allows it to be considered “yes” without punishment, which resolves the problem of violence.

I’ll just go ahead and agree!