Review: What the Hell Is a 'Libertarian Authoritarian'?
Offended Freedom categorizes perfectly understandable anger at government overreach as inherently "authoritarian."

In Offended Freedom: The Rise of Libertarian Authoritarianism, two Swiss sociologists, Carolin Amlinger and Oliver Nachtwey, indulge in a common academic habit: blaming libertarians for an intellectual and social phenomena that they find alarming. Their bill of particulars fails to stick because of conceptual incoherence, mistaking radical opposition to any government policy—even one that allows more liberty than the disgruntled person wants—as "libertarian," and categorizing perfectly understandable anger at government overreach as inherently "authoritarian."
The authoritarians the authors study—those angry at more open immigration—are not at all libertarian. The study's libertarians—those who opposed COVID-19 restrictions—are antiauthoritarian. Even while granting that the latter "do not primarily yearn for the reinstatement of traditional values, nor do they submit uncritically to leaders," the authors lump them into the authoritarian category, trotting out the leftist writer Theodor Adorno's hoary old ideas about the "authoritarian personality."
The authors have found a genuinely interesting phenomenon—people formerly of the left, who "were once committed to an emancipatory transformation of the existing order," who have pivoted to hostility toward openness to foreigners and the wider world and to anger at what presents as scientific authority.
Their specific examples are German, but Americans will recognize the type: people radicalized against regnant Western political and cultural authorities over COVID restrictions and the allowance of wider immigration. Indeed, many of the same people share those attitudes. But lumping them together as "libertarian authoritarians" misreads both groups in ways that should have been obvious.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
From the Libertarianism I"ve observed the label is just right. The constant attacks on Religious Freedom, the demeaning way the Founders are treated on REASON.That debate with the Manhattan Institute on immigration. If you don't lose that I promise to resign posting here. Your views on that are typical of almost all views on serious subjects here. I think they will crush you. We'll see.
MI is not Libertarian but is dedicated to " develop and disseminate new ideas that foster greater economic choice and individual responsibility. "
Let's compare ....
Arrive on your own, meet with family and friends who help you adjust, take low-pay low-skill jobs, live in crowded tenements learn the language, learn the culture, save money, sponsor more family and friends, and don't whine and moan about unfair treatment, don't demand handouts, raise families and insist the children learn their new country's language.
Versus being enticed by free lodging in fancy hotels, free meals, free cash, and forbidden to work, so they get bored out of their skulls, cause trouble, and piss and bitch about this godforsaken country. The crowded housing they would be glad to settle in and could afford are forbidden by building codes and zoning. The low-skill low-pay jobs they could handle while learning the language, culture, and new skills are forbidden by minimum wage laws and occupational licensing, even if they were allowed to work.
And that's not even mentioning the refugees, virtually kidnapped and flown in because their host countries are tired of putting up with their squalid camps. They don't know anything about where they are going, they don't like the weather and culture of wherever they end up, they too are put up in nice lodging, with free food and cash, and forbidden to work, forced to take indoctrination classes in wokism, bored and pissed and angry. And their new communities had no say in the matter, are disgusted with the flood of freeloaders who know nothing and want to know less, who clog their stores with their free money and whine about not finding anything they know.
I call it open borders vs open boarders, but whatever it's called, the failure to recognize the difference shows how idiotic the whole immigration discussion has gotten.
The question has never been about what is happening. The question is what to do about it. You can declare an emergency and escalate the violence using unrestrained government authority. Or you can let the hard-working people who are supporting themselves after arriving here - whether they intend to become citizens or not - remain and keep supporting themselves; while letting the boarders go back home if they can't find work and don't like it here. If you can find kidnappers in all of this, by all means charge them and prosecute them for kidnapping. The rest is just window dressing to disguise the political agenda of xenophobes and demagogues. While I object to spending tax money to support immigrants, the solution is to stop spending tax money in support of immigrants, not to round up citizens, legal visitors and criminals en masse and deport them with no due diligence.
Silly, silly, silly.....MS-13 and Tren de Aragua are here and mainly because Kamala the Border Czar did NOTHING
More than 10 million inadmissible aliens, along with at least 2 million more known “gotaways,” have entered since she and Biden took office.
With Kamala in charge of the border, the United States has encountered an unfathomable 515,000 unaccompanied minors.
These poor children speak no English and have almost no support system here.
By Biden’s own estimation, 75 to 80% of them are suffering from the trauma of being brought into the United States by smugglers who “routinely engage in physical and sexual abuse.”
YOU ARE SUPPORTING THE UGLIEST OF CRIMINALS AND THE WORST OF POLITICIANS
But where is the mention of Biden?and his Border Czar, Kamala ?
It 'has gotten' -- no, it has been for a long time.
Harris makes first trip to U.S. southern border in three years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoQoQ7QITDY
and this is 2024 !!!
'What the Hell Is a 'Libertarian Authoritarian'?'
Did he mean, "What the hell is a libertine authoritarian?"
Although I have no intention of wasting my time reading socialist-sociologist garbage, one might have hoped that educated professionals would have at least paid lip service to the obvious contradiction in terms between liberty and authoritarianism. I can't count the number of times someone has alleged that libertarians want to impose liberty on people who would rather be ruled. The first way that this can be shown to be false is obviously that people who prefer to be ruled can find rulers within an otherwise libertarian society and would, by definition, be left alone to do so. Peeking behind the curtains of this charade one would easily discover that they do not want to only personally be ruled over, they want EVERYONE to be ruled over at the same time. See? I'm not a trained philosopher, but even I can shoot down this nonsense logically in one paragraph.
Yes , "one would easily discover" so you miss the root vice of these libertarians
To doubt is a misfortune, but to seek when in doubt is an indispensable duty. So he who doubts and seeks not is at once unfortunate and unfair.
Blaise Pascal
The authoritarians the authors study—those angry at more open immigration—are not at all libertarian.
The decisive, anti-liberty, authoritarianism of "You don't have to go home but you can't stay here."
The principled, individual-liberty, freedom of "I won't house these people in my own home, but everyone else should tolerate them the way I think they should."
"but everyone else should tolerate them the way I think they should"
This is pure bullshit! Those two are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive. A third alternative is what most libertarians actually believe: I may or may not house them in my own home but tax money should not be used to support them under any circumstances. They should be allowed to support themselves if they can with any work that is mutually agreeable to them and their employers; and government should not interfere in any way. The only way tolerance comes into this is if you are an intolerant xenophobe who refuses to tolerate brown skin.
Go peddle your crap somewhere where people are unable to think!
most libertarians actually believe: I may or may not house them in my own home but tax money should not be used to support them under any circumstances. They should be allowed to support themselves if they can with any work that is mutually agreeable to them and their employers; and government should not interfere in any way.
Let's agree to disagree. In the meantime, let's integrate the entire world into the American welfare system until we can pull it back to zero... and pulling it back to zero via fully engaging in Due Process.
If you don't want your government to give welfare to immigrants, vote against it. If that doesn't work, grow a pair and refuse. What America suffers from lately is not too many immigrants but too many freeloading citizens eager to give someone else's money away.
Let's agree to disagree.
You know how if Trump actually were a regular visitor to Epstein Island we would all know everything down to the tail numbers on every last flight?
Yeah, don't hold your breath waiting for the coverage of "most libertarians" who "may or may not house them in their home". I thought Ronnie D did a pretty decisive from-the-3-point-line, behind-the-back, 360-degree slam dunk on that argument in 2022 but, obviously, that doesn't stop people from being willfully, embarrassingly self-retarded in public.
I think what Mr. Doherty is discovering is a concept known as 'liberation Marxism' or 'liberatory Marxism". But please, keep looking, Diogenes-like, for that left-libertarian alliance.
Tony used to argue that libertarians are authoritarians. Here's how it worked. If you want to stop an authoritarian government from infringing upon your liberty, then you need to control the people who are controlling you. The only way to control those people is through force. You have to force those who are infringing upon your liberty to stop infringing upon your liberty. Thus libertarianism is authoritarian because it requires authority over authority. Fucking retarded if you ask me, but that's what he really believed.
Um, the Mises Caucus, Javier Milei, Josh Blackman, and about 95% of the people in the Reason Hit&Run comments?
That's nay a true Scotsman!!!!!