Libertarianism has a problem, perhaps an insurmountable one, and its problem
lies squarely in the domain from which it is sourced: the intellectual and
political elite of the West. As such, it rests on an ontological viewpoint far
outside the purview and experience of quotidian man. Furthermore, it rests on
an epistemology of the person as sovereign, Natural Law, which requires a
concomitant education or understanding of the Classics, or at least selfawareness
and the ability to think logically. Many non-intellectuals are either
uninterested or incapable of following the Libertarian arguments of personal
sovereignty and instead submit. This unconscious submission to the authority
of a government, father figure, or other self-appointed “authority” relieves the
individual of the psychological pain of breaking out of the herd. C. G. Jung
(1875-1961) was adamant that to be an individual is a radical act: “To develop
one’s own personality is indeed an unpopular undertaking, a deviation that is
highly uncongenial to the herd, an eccentricity smelling of the cenobite, as it
seems to the outsider [11, Para. 298]. Further, Alexander Hamilton (1755 or
1747-1804) noted that the elite are more than happy to have the masses submit
to their authority without question as it advances their control: “a fondness for
power is implanted in most men, and it is natural to abuse it when acquired”
[9]. The rest of this article explores this psychosis of authority and how
Libertarianism suffers in popularity as a result.