One of the ways many “libertarians” describe themselves is the infamous “socially liberal and fiscally conservative.” Essentially they claim to be culturally left, progressive, promoting equality and egalitarianism. But in terms of economics, they claim to support a free market and capitalism. These same people are also often found flaunting the fact that they “reject the right-left dichotomy” or that they “hate both sides equally.” The problem is not only that this does not accurately represent libertarianism. But that it damages the reputation and makes it unappealing to the right, who share much more in common than the egalitarian left.
Firstly, why does this not work to describe libertarianism? Briefly, libertarianism is private property rights. We need certain property norms to prevent and solve the conflict that arises with scarcity. In short, essentially, you own yourself, and the only ways in which you can get a property is through homesteading or voluntary trade. It entails a free unrestricted market, and a private law society, or natural order. (For more on libertarianism see What Anarcho-Capitalism Is What Libertarianism Is) As is fairly evident, the phrase “socially liberal and fiscally conservative” doesn’t function well to describe libertarianism.
Egalitarianism is incompatible with libertarianism. Humans are different and not equal, and when they are free to associate and disassociate with whom they choose, this becomes even more apparent. Besides this to have private property implies difference, because with private property you get exclusion, which creates hierarchy and difference. Because of this, social ostracization will play a significant role in a private law society. Degenerate lifestyles are not only harming oneself but generally cause harm or disrupt the community in some form or another, thus making it in the community’s interest to get the individual to change or leave. Therefore the degenerates will be “physically removed” (disassociate from and socially ostracized) and leave. This would make degenerate lifestyles more uncommon as not only time preference would be higher without a state but also with the freedom to associate with whom you please degenerates would be cut off. (To see more on time preference and physical removal – How “Time Preferences” Make Or Break Civilization Physical Removal is Essential To Liberty)
Not only would socially liberal lifestyles be much more uncommon and less tolerated in a private law society, advocating and supporting and even tolerating them is detrimental to reaching our goal. The more degenerate and low time preference the general population is, the more they look to the state to help fix the problems they are causing, it is easier for the state to take advantage and manipulate people. Not only that, but it also makes libertarianism extremely unappealing. As of now, most perceive it to be libertinism or hedonistic, because of how many lolbertarians parade their support for equality and the degenerate lifestyles we see common today. Because libertarianism is a right-wing political philosophy (Libertarianism as Right-Wing Libertarianism is Right Wing), it is easier to make alliances with other people on the right, the right as of now is mainly disgusted with libertarians, and for a good reason. To quote Lew Rockwell, “If the American people continue to connect libertarianism with repellent cultural norms, we will fail. But if paleolibertarianism can break that connection, then anything is possible.”