Hello, I'm new here
and in the past I have never liked any category of political positions. Until recently I came across the term libertarianism and I was wondering if I could call myself a libertarian. One could possibly say that I have been somewhat a libertarian for some time before I actually knew that such a word exists.
The reason for this is that I read in a quote that the fate of modern civilization depends on whether it is able to adapt to a decentralized system. And that it's impossible to fight centralization, as it would go on increasing like a snowball until the catastrophe comes. In the beginning I couldn't figure out what centralization actually means and it took me some time to develop a grasp of it. Here is my understanding of it.
First and maybe most prevalent is the concentration of wealth and resources. Everyone can look up the numbers themselves or ask ChatGPT about it. I think it is important to note that in no western industrial nation the concentration of wealth has ever decreased. Everyday life is becoming more and more expensive for normal citizens while a little minority kinda takes it all. This is also in (very) sharp contrast to most political parties programs speaking of equality. The inequality of chances is a problem that has also never decreased.
The second important point is the accumulation of power in governments on national/federal levels. This hit me pretty hard upon realization, because it has made me realize that some of these most serious political problems will never been solved under the current conditions. Let me explain.
Even though I assume that there usually is some degree of subsidiarity incorporated in national constitutions, my experience is that it's almost completely irrelevant. I'm a German citizen and my everyday political experiences are, without exception, about politics on federal level. Political issues are discussed almost entirely, whether publicly or privately, on this level. I think this development parallels the dissolution of linguistic complexity and leads to cultural decadency. People consider themselves to be citizens of a national state (Germany) and at the same time lose connection to their real origin, which is a uniquely, limited piece of land with long historical traditions. Think of the patchwork of the Holy Roman Empire. Citizenship of a national state is an imaginary construct which generally has no foundation in the material world, but the membership of a local community is real, with many tangible artifacts and enduring personal relationships. For a German citizen, the extinction of regional culture probably predates the First World War, which some historians call the seminal catastrophe of the 20th century. Uniform nationalism takes its toll.
This is what I have come to understand under the term libertarianism: having as little state as possible while maintaining the highest degree of regional self-determination as possible. Nationalism and local self-determination must not necessarily contradict each other. I think Switzerland does a good job at this. The linguistic complexity in this country persists. Unity through division (or differences). The only real multiculturalism. This differentiates in many respects from the monoculture that results from the widespread contemporary progressive liberalism. No nations no borders, limitless freedom, blablabla. I read somewhere that the ability to incorporate paradoxes is a sign of a healthy functioning mind…
Thank you very much for your attention. Kind regards.
Posted by fonzane