The split in leftist philosophy

I will demonstrate this technique.

Left-wing debaters often artificially separate pragmatic from moral, contrasting them with each other. And at the same time, they argue their theses from the perspective of both pragmatism and morality, switching from one to the other – within the same debate – as the case may be.

Thus, at the beginning of the debate, they accuse people arguing in a market and libertarian way of life of a lack of pragmatism. Of naivety . Of infantile IDEALISM. They state that in theory, the freedom of the individual is indeed a supreme value and should not be violated in any way, but in practice, because for them a person is inherently immoral and stupid, the state has to put him on constructive tracks. Hence, they defend the idea that the central and authoritarian management of the economy, although not particularly attractive from a moral perspective, is reasonable from a pragmatic perspective.

"The Necessary Evil"

"Without a state, it cannot be done"

"Enough with utopias – it's time to grow up"

All messages that provoke the pragmatic in a person and aim to belittle the interlocutor by casting doubt on the rationality and adequacy of his or her reasoning.

Once the debate moves in this direction , the prepared libertarian begins to present rational and completely pragmatic arguments to respond to accusations of naivety and to show that the pragmatic position is actually his. For example, he mentions the impossibility of economic calculation at the state level, hence the inadequacy of economic planning in a socialist, close to socialist / Keynesian / state-regulated economy, the unmanageable and wasteful nature of the cost-covering principle and the solidarity principle, the distortion and corruption of economic signals and incentives, the detachment of investment initiatives from real savings, the distortion of indicators such as interest rates, prices, cash flows, profitability, net present value, redemption period, uniformity of cash flow...

Thus, the libertarian emphasizes the irrationality in the distortion of market incentives and signals, which causes a bunch of wrong economic actions and wrong investments - and as a result, a bunch of started business projects that unexpectedly become more expensive and whose repayment and maintenance are unexpectedly difficult and delayed. Ballooning, which drains resources and ends with economic collapse. Plus yawning deficits and prioritizing the absorption of funds over saving and investing, consistent with reality.

As soon as they hear these arguments, people with left-wing beliefs instantly SWITCH the “frequency” in the argumentation. And they enter the role of moralizing idealists. They ignore any economic and pragmatic aspects of the debate, qualifying them as “crude”, “mercantile”, “detached from humanity”, “too lowering the level of the conversation – profaning it”. There were more important things than economic calculation, profitability, business pragmatism. They talked about humanity, morality, justice, kindness, responsibility, caring.

And again

Libertarians were on the wrong side of the debate because they ignored the moral, philosophical, and human side of life.

No favors.

A manifestation of such duplicity is the attitude towards the political apparatus. The left constantly slander politicians, accusing them of corruption, incompetence, immorality and servility. And opposing them to natural human values. But as soon as the libertarian proposes to seek a market solution to some case – also referring to natural human values and rebelling against the same vices of politicians – the left jumps into criticism and nagging, passionately defending the philosophy that it is politicians who should and are able to make the most constructive, honest and moral decisions.

And in order to cover up the contradictions of their position, they artificially detach politicians from the state.

It's just more convenient!

If we accept that politicians are immoral, counterproductive, and harmful, the leftists argue, then the state simply has to deal with them, just as it deals with the predatory nature of capitalists and the market.

How simple it was!

Because even in the mind of a left-wing person there is a spark of logic smoldering, he cannot afford to openly claim that A is both A and not A. Therefore, a third element enters the logical construction - the state.

For the left, the state is at a decent distance, both from the "predatory" market and "greedy" capitalists, and from corrupt and immoral politicians. Therefore, it should play a corrective role.

I have always found this purely technical logic strange – which is de facto absurd because it is totally detached from reality. It is crazy to radically detach the human system, the product of human decisions and human actions from the people themselves. Moreover, the state is not simply a product of human decisions and actions, but a mental construct. It exists and functions in total dependence on human thoughts, decisions and actions. Moreover:

In practice, the state IS human thoughts, decisions and actions! It is a human concept!

In order for the "state to borrow," the Minister of Finance must propose it, and the Prime Minister and MPs must approve it. After which the Minister and his subordinates must again implement the borrowing. And finally, taxpayers must pay it back.

In order for the "state to invest in a project," first the workers have to earn money, then the taxpayers have to collect a sum of money, then the prime minister and ministers have to decide what this money will be invested in, then the deputies have to vote, then a team from the relevant ministry implements the investment.

That is: The separation of the state from the payers and from the specific political figures implementing state projects is completely meaningless.

The state is the politicians who are currently in power and who take and spend money - that is, those whose word is final.

Today, the state of Bulgaria is Boyko Borisov, Vladislav Goranov, Petar Moskov, Lilyana Pavlova, etc. Specific individuals, equipped with power, through force to collect and spend money.

But the left's split thinking prevents him from fully understanding this. That's why he tends to simultaneously pour fire and brimstone on the political class and call for more taxes and more regulations to keep the state strong.

To a libertarian, this is absolute madness. He reasons like this: It's not logical for me to give my money to people who will spend it inefficiently and on meaningless things. It's not moral for these people to force me to give them money.

The libertarian is a realist

It is extremely inadequate to call him a utopian, or an inadequate idealist whose mind is floating in the clouds. In fact, the libertarian wants things that are completely logical and pragmatic, but simply have not yet been fully realized and on a maximum scale, due to the delayed development of people, due to the desire for power and due to individual acts of stupidity and dishonesty - mostly related to the state apparatus, that is, to the people who make it up. What is more : The libertarian sees how constructive principles ennoble his life, because he applies them in practice. He sees the value of voluntary relationships in personal life, in business, in education... And he simply wants people to be consistent in order to spread this value.

On the other hand, the leftist is an idealist/utopian. Only in the vicious sense of the word, because he does not simply long for a better world, but closes his eyes and offers illogical solutions, simply because they sound beautiful to him. And simply because it is easier than thinking deeply. He accepts the state as something divine, detached from people, because it is more convenient for him. And from this position he heaps accusations on specific politicians as sinful people and appeals for more power of the state as a universal source of constructive solutions.

And the split of thought prevents the leftist from paying due attention to the fact that what he calls the state with trepidation is actually all those concrete politicians, officials and bureaucrats that he spits on. And that in fact it is the state as a concept of power that incites them and gives them various weapons. Because the state can express itself only in a concrete government and a concrete political class that are clothed in exclusive power. Outside of them, the state is an imaginary, mental construct used to justify violence against the individual, in the name of some abstract order.

Currently, the country of Bulgaria is

GERB!

And specifically Boyko Borisov, Vladislav Goranov, Petar Moskov, Tomislav Donchev, Meglena Kuneva, Ivaylo Kalfin, Lilyana Pavlova, Bozhidar Lukarski and all the other individuals in the Council of Ministers and in the National Assembly.

And when leftists defend more serious state participation in the economy, they are actually defending power and the more serious participation of these people in the economy.

From this position, to declare that you need to rid the state of bad people in order for true statehood to return is, to say the least, inconsistent. And it becomes hypocritical once leftists start defending democracy as well.

Because democracy is precisely the most powerful argument in favor of the legitimacy of the actions of these same individuals. They were elected in elections - and they have power quite legitimately.

But the leftist continues to suck and cover up. We should honor the state and empower it more and more, but bad politicians are to blame for the mischief and we should hold them accountable. The state should manage the economy, but we should reduce the economic influence of corrupt and bad politicians on economic development.

Politicians are thieves, but we should be willing to pay more taxes.

I don't know if my understanding is entirely influenced by libertarian philosophy, but somehow it doesn't seem sensible to me to give more money to a person I know is a thief and a crook. Or that he's just stupid. Or that he's all three.

And here, for me, the most important feature of libertarianism is revealed: Philosophical honesty and consistency!

A libertarian is a libertarian primarily because he is honest and consistent on a deep philosophical level. Which means that he maintains realism and pragmatism in his thinking, judgment, and opinion regardless of the degree of abstraction of the case under consideration. And he neither manipulates others nor manipulates himself by using ideological clichés and hackneyed phrases.

Therefore, the libertarian is immune to the bifurcation of thought and morality. And he realizes that at the core of every human system – such as the state – are specific people. And from this position, the libertarian seeks the adequate stimuli, signals, relationships and actions – those that create and preserve human values.

And while leftist philosophy rots in clichés, illogicality, contradictions, opposition, and hypocrisy, libertarian philosophy flourishes in principles, consistency, pragmatism, honesty, and integrity.

Libertarian philosophy is simply meaningful, unified, and humane!

And the left is divided, corroded by internal contradictions and cut off from man and reality.

Choose.