Hold onto your waifus, gents! Counterfeit Frenchman here—and today I’m punching to the right!
This article was originally a response on the forums where I took serious issue with Zeiger’s recent article, “Libertarianism and Marxism: The Twin Offspring of Liberalism.” As a shitlordy classical liberal myself, I felt that Zeiger was being a bit unfair to my often annoying fellow-travellers in the “Liberty Movement.” So in the spirit of discussion, here are my four principal objections to his article:
First, I take issue with this notion that seems so prevalent among the TRS commentators that classical liberalism was doomed to fail. You can’t make that judgement since there’s no way to test inevitability. History isn’t a science experiment you can run again with different parameters. So any argument that this or that idea was inevitably going to degrade into the mess we’re in now is meaningless since you can’t argue anything based on a sample size of one. It’s all speculation. In fact, there are a lot of turning points in American history where things could plausibly have turned out differently. For example, we almost went to war with Revolutionary France in the late 1790s. Had things gone differently, the US would have declared war, other powers would have leaped at an excuse to dogpile France, and the Jacobins would likely have been crushed, changing the trajectory of the US. Who knows—maybe, with democracy being discredited in such a flagrant and undeniable way, we would have held on as an aristocratic republic. You can argue that all this is speculation, and you’d be right. But my point is, it’s no less plausible than his speculation that classical liberalism would have inevitably become the modern left. There’s just no escaping the speculative nature of the topic, which is extremely frustrating to everyone involved.
Second, I think Zeiger’s conception of what libertarianism is is flawed. Your article says that “libertarianism is based on the notion that all men are morally equal,” which is only partially true. Some types of libertarians do think that way, but most just argue from a practical perspective: society seems to run better when a government rules with a light hand. Equality doesn’t factor in at all. Problem is, our leftist society implicitly rewards types of libertarianism that do believe in shitlib priors like moral equality by giving them speaking time in the public forum, since they pose no threat to the Narrative. This means that most people’s interactions with libertarianism are with the morally-compromised and cucked branches of the tree, because those are the ones that get in the public eye. I got the impression from reading Zeiger’s article that his criticisms are really only relevant to shit-tier ancaps and the like, since those are the loudest and most obnoxious bunch. For classical liberals and paleocons, this is a false choice since we don’t reject the value of hierarchy at all.
I guess you could boil this whole objection down to NALALT, but it’s still a valid criticism to bring up when you try to judge a very diverse (ugh) movement by only arguing with its loudest and stupidest adherents. It’s a simplistic overgeneralization—par for the course in the edgisphere, I guess, but not a good thing to make a movement out of. Sometimes libertarians really are Not All Like That.
Speaking of false choices, there’s the matter of his analysis of (((ethnic minorities))) promoting libertarianism to the white majority to weaken them while being collectivist themselves:
The point that libertarianism is Jewish in origin has already been discussed extensively before, and I won't rehash that here. Needless to say, ethnic minorities who occupy White countries (like the Jews) do not adopt a libertarian ethic, but quite the opposite. Ethnic favoritism is at the core of their success.
His analysis there is mostly right, but it’s irrelevant as a general critique of libertarian thought. First, libertarian ideas are only Jewish plots if you don’t look any deeper than (((Ayn Rand))) and (((Milton Friedman))). The classical liberals of the Enlightenment whose ideas formed the basis of libertarianism were not Jewish, at least not to my knowledge. So it seems to me that the Jews are merely taking advantage of an already-existing movement to their own ends, not creating it out of whole cloth. But on a larger note, the idea that we need to choose between individualism and collectivism is a false choice. Granted, this is a pretty big problem with libertarians in general, but I don’t see why the two need to be in opposition. It goes back to the problems with White “pathological altruism”: there’s nothing wrong with altruism, provided you know where to stop. Modern libertarians have erased the distinction between “Us” and “Them”, but theoretically there’s no reason why it has to be this way. What’s wrong with liberty for the ingroup, while still retaining enough collectivist mentality to mobilize effectively against hostile outgroups? It’s all a question of boundaries.
I also take issue with what (to me) seemed like a dangerously naive analysis of state power. I’ll quote him at length:
Ultimately, the state is a tool. Whether it is good or bad depends on who is using it and for what purpose. The American government isn’t evil because it’s big and bloated. Imagine what this monstrously large institution could do in the hands of good men who care about the future of White people. Practically all of our ills could be cured in record time…
…We must abandon foolish notions of “objectivity” if those lead to our destruction. “Freedom” is no different from “tolerance”. We all understand now that tolerance is not a virtue if the thing being tolerated is evil (bad for our people and against the natural order). Likewise, freedom to commit evil cannot be considered desirable. All that matters is freedom to do good. Today, we are not free to do good, because all laws are inverted by our enemies. Wishful thinkers long for freedom, thinking ‘well, if we were totally free at least I could do the right thing’. This is a compromise. Instead, we should long for total victory, where the only freedom is freedom to do good (meaning, what is good for our people). Our enemies certainly don’t cheer for the freedom to do what they don’t like, and neither should we.
The problem with your analysis of the state is that you ignore the fact that the average person has no ability at all to affect policy. None at all. These problems get worse in the authoritarian governments that seem to be so popular with the crowd that generally agrees with your position. Having one leader means that essentially, you’re gambling everything on one person having your best interests at heart. These problems are only amplified in a powerful bureaucratic state, since the inherent inefficiencies prevent any theoretical checks from having an effect on the system. You might like your absolute leaders, since they’re “good men who care about the future of White people.” But my point is that given the size of the bureaucracy, the concentration of power, and the eternal powerlessness of the average man, you have no way of ensuring your big and powerful government will continue to work in your best interests.
This carries over into your criticism of “foolish notions” like freedom. You might like the idea of the government denying a platform to Commie Jew Fucks and other degenerates and Cultural Marxists to “protect society from corruption,” but what would your recourse be if they decided that getting rid of Internet anonymity and taking away your gun rights (“for your own good, Citizen”) could help with that mission too? Are you saying the idea would never cross the leadership’s minds to betray their ideals if it meant gaining more power? What recourse would you have? Given the history of authoritarian regimes falling to corruption and turning on their own people, how will you ensure yours will be any different? Freedom for all citizens (the Us to their Them), even with its faults, is valuable extra insurance in an unpredictable, amoral world. Don’t mistake this as an argument for mass democracy; we’re all aware of the problem of extending the vote to the Mob. I’m just arguing that without checks on the system and a social mechanism holding the government accountable, there’s no way for you to stop your own government being turned around on you once corruption sets in.
In conclusion, Zeiger’s article is built on a foundation of overgeneralizations, false choices, mischaracterization of his opposition, and just plain edginess for its own sake. I understand that these criticisms apply to a large number of libertarians—especially the anarcho-capitalists we all love to hate—but that doesn’t mean that they can be generalized into a blanket condemnation of all libertarian thought. Likewise, I understand the urge to fash out as hard as you can, for the sake of signalling and trying to find some sort of symbol to rally behind. But all the Iron March memes in the world can’t solve the fundamental problems with authoritarian politics.
At the end of the day, there are certain human constants. Whites + Personal Freedom = Civilization, absolute power still corrupts absolutely, we still can’t predict the future, and we still have no way of ensuring that the good stay good. There’s a lot worth salvaging from classical liberalism, and I still hold that there are a lot of advantages to trying to approximate the ideal of an aristocratic republic. The world we all want existed once before, and it existed without Fascism. We can build it again, provided we know where to draw the line between prudent policy and fashy signalling.
I look forward to seeing your comments.