An Apostate On Libertarians

3t5jw8Let me begin by stating that I believe everyone reading this article will at least share my desire for a more orderly and prosperous society than what currently exists in the West today. With that said, my criticisms and considerations are mainly directed at libertarians.

I should preface that I myself have been a libertarian since 2007 or so. I supported Ron Paul in 2008 and would have liked to have seen him get the GOP nomination at least in 2012. Besides that I have read, watched and studied libertarian ideology since then, so don’t believe a return criticism that can be leveled at me is, “he just doesn’t understand libertarianism!” In fact, it is my understanding of the subject that informs these criticisms.

Libertarians desire a society that has more personal liberty, economic freedom and less “nanny state” molestation of the individual. These are indeed admirable goals, but their ways of achieving these are mistaken. Many think this can be done through either nonviolence and the non-aggression principle, or a sort of Fabian philosophical drift.

Seeing nothing new under the sun, I’ve come to think, as The Joker put it, “that is the one rule you’ll have to break to know the truth.” To paraphrase him, the only sensible way to live in this world and achieve your goals is not through the absence of rules(ers), but by not allowing everyone to decide on the rules.

Because the result of everyone deciding the rules of society is a paradoxically stagnant and dysgenic morass, progress-minded Libertarians are often left feeling like the odd man out. Some, in near desperation, seek separation because of the horrors of what democracy brings about.

I believe the intelligent of “the right” nowadays are more prone to this libertarianism and anti-statism because they see escape from the masses as the only way to achieve their desires. This post is not to discuss the merits of secession; I would just like you to consider the flip side. Perhaps you ought not try and escape, but rather use your intelligence to control and govern the masses.

In a way “installing” liberty in the USA and other Western nations is like supporting neoconservative efforts overseas to install democracies. It isn’t compatible with most people. Let us not kid ourselves when we look around the room and mainly see a homogeneous grouping of people who support liberty and an easily-identified mass of people who don’t.

Mussolini said, “the truth is men are tired of liberty.” A more apt description would be that some men aren’t tired of liberty; it’s just that most don’t know what to do with it and can’t handle it.

Stated bluntly, the only way a Paul will save you is by installing him as dictator for life…

618px-Trollface_HD

Libertarians also tend to get their jimmies rustled when others argue about characteristics of people, and in turn groups, mainly from a racial standpoint. To think outside the total individualism box is to incur the chant, “that’s just collectivism!” This goes back to the unscientific idea that we’re all a “blank slate” and that any such groupings are “social constructs” meant more to obfuscate than to inform.

Libertarians want to argue that these ideas of race are leftist and communistic. Ironically, what they don’t realize is the egalitarian schwerpunkt is leftist in itself. It is naïve to think we’re all equal and uniformly fertile gardens ready to be tended by Ron Paul, Mises and Rothbard. This is simply not the case, and it is certainly not “evil” or “bad” to state such facts of reality or to base political policy on this. In fact, I believe more open acceptance of true human differences would result in more harmonious outcomes for all involved. In case you have forgotten, God is dead: so any idea of an objective racial morality to base your ideals of liberty on are just silly. Leave such twaddle to recent trillionaire Stefan Molyneux.

As libertarians are a marginalized group, I’ve as of late begun to think of them like the GOP. They want to think that they can appeal to many non-whites because of some little points that matter to them. For example:

GOP: “We’ve got Marco Rubio and Bobby Jindal. We’re just as appealing and hip as the mulatto leftist you chose!”

Libertarians: “Everyone loves liberty, respect for private property and prosperity! How can you not accept that?”

Libertarians are indeed admirably dogmatic, but misguided. I’ve actually had libertarians tell me that they would travel to educate 3rd world immigrants in an effort to engender libertarian ideals. Now I’m going to assume not all libertarians advocate this, but on a logistical level this is utterly retarded. Their very existence is only possible through the explicitly dysgenic culture of Liberalism. If humans are indeed driven by incentives, where is the incentive in selling shitty people on a more difficult and honest world of merit?

I can imagine some going around with their little black & gold books “preaching the gospel” of liberty. “Excuse me, let me tell you about my personal savior Ludwig von Mises.” I’m sure Matt Stone and Trey Parker would write an entertaining musical about it.
The libertarian gospel has, and will continue to fall on deaf ears. Perhaps it’s the lack of historical grounding? Perhaps the “black and gold” need to remember that humanity had to have this:

600px-Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor_with_haloes_(1400-1806).svg

Before they could have this:

Anarcho_Capitalist_Flag

So where does this leave us? I know I’ve done more deconstruction than construction. Where should you go from here? As a start I would say entertain the ideas of “libertarian fascism,” read Mencius Moldbug, research the implications demography has on the political landscape, and study history. Don’t think you’ve reached end of political ideologies, intellectual laziness is unbecoming of my fellow travelers. I’ve heard apt criticisms leveled that I don’t think libertarianism can tackle currently. You should find and ruminate upon these criticisms; it’ll be good for you.

In conclusion, dear reader, I say just because you have a vested interest in your ideology now, still make yourself listen to criticism, and don’t dismiss anything that disagrees with you out of hand. Such behavior is more fitting for the leftists, after all.

  • http://theoldmaninthecave.blogspot.de/ The Old Man in the Cave

    They are smarter than your average bear, but they have some maturing to do. The saving grace is that most of them are young, so there certainly is hope.

    • Germanicus

      I agree. They are more fertile gardens than most other groups I would say and there is a lot of potential in them. Ridicule will get us no where for the most part, so I think deconstructing their worldview and posing these questions is a step in the right direction.

  • David

    I’m 21. I was a libertarian for maybe a year until I really read Hayek and Mises. Go beyond them and it just becomes a quagmire. Rothbard to Kinsella. I see little contradiction between accepting Mises and Hayek and accepting Reactionism. Nor can Moldbug apparently.

    • Michael Enoch

      Both Mises and Hayek were economic advisors to fascist regimes. I see no contradictions with accepting them. They are even more compatible with monarchism. Just because the ancap movement has gone full retard is no reason to reject sound economics. Austrian econ can be value free and used as a tool to produce the kind of social goals we have.

      • Germanicus

        I agree with Michael .

  • Pingback: Foseti

  • Darth Stirner

    Well done.

    “As a start I would say entertain the ideas of “libertarian fascism”, read Mencius Moldbug, research the implications demography has on the political landscape, and study history.”

    http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/2010/02/from-mises-to-carlyle-my-sick-journey.html

    http://therightstuff.biz/2013/01/23/fascist-libertarianism-for-a-better-world/

  • austrian

    I think you should have a read about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_von_Wieser

    Initially the austrian school of economics was not anti-authoritarian, they accepted authority as something natural. But that did not mean that the economists, like Menger or von Wieser, did not try to find out the truth about socio-economical relationships and what would be the best policies to implement, on the imperial level.

    The anti-state and anti-authoritarian elements were added later by one of von Wieser’s scholars and later major figures in the austrian school, von Mises. Of course he did a great work on the field of the economical theory, but by “raiding” all of the school with the notion that anarchy is man’s natural state, he abnegates the roots and thoughts of the creators of that particular school. He did even go that far and call von Wieser a non-Austrian, because of his pro-authoritarian and pro-empire mindset.

    So far, your article reminds me of the words of von Wieser: “Freedom has to be superseded by a system of order”.

    • Michael Enoch

      Mises also became more anti-authoritarian as he got older and moved to the US. He would be considered very authoritarian by the standards of LewRockwell and the intellectuals at the LVMI. He was not an anti-statist.

  • http://www.TheLibertarian.Info Robert

    Thanks for the article. For info on people using voluntary Libertarian tools on similar and other issues worldwide, please see the non-partisan Libertarian International Organization @ http://www.Libertarian-International.org ….

    IMHO I think you have at best read some libertarian-directionists and have little idea of the full scope of the movement. Libertarians basically legalized and created the internet, yet there you are bemoaning there failures. Look at what is happening.

  • http://islandmra.blogspot.ca/ Manifestum

    You and Moldbug have convinced me that libertarian fascism is the way out of this mess. I should do more research on Augusto Pinochet. Maybe his methods could work.

  • http://nreakcija.wordpress.com Reakcionar

    Before I even heard of Rothbard or Hoppe, I knew that the State is a compulsory violent organization, taxes were a form of theft, military is there to turn you into cannon fodder etc. However, I also knew that it’s not the police, but football hooligans who will more likely crack my head open for nothing, it’s not the taxes that could ruin my life as much as democratic-nationalist proscriptions I witnessed in my younger years (I’m from ex Yugoslavia), and at the end – life sucks.

    That’s actually the biggest problem with libertarians – accepting that life sucks and there’s no heaven on Earth. It’s really that simple. You want absolute freedom and monetary independency? Well, I want Jerry Ryan in my bed, but it won’t happen… Yes, the state is a bunch of thieves written large, but what about it? Will you make them disappear overnight? Or would you settle down with a King and a 10% flat tax? You want to reduce the State through democratic political activism? I want a ride on a T-rex, but it’s just not going to happen.

    So, this is I split libertarians into two groups:

    1. Accepting the reality of this world.
    2. Trying to push idealism and serving as useful idiots to the left – even if they grab the power, the Cathedral would grind their main objectives into dust, but accept open borders, gay marriage etc.

    I believe that there is a lot of good smart people in the 2nd group, who are just too influenced by the modern culture and philosophy. They need to be exposed to the Dark Side, and some of them will be seduced. (From personal experience – some of my acquaintances are slowly beggining to unterstand the difference from ReasonTV and Kuehnelt-Leddihn).