So, according to Tucker, the “fullness of (humanity’s) fruits” is being trampled by high time preference-types for a $200 Playstation 3. Most of them are buying these deals on credit, as well. I’m sure our ancestors are proud.
This article is my attempt to start an open dialogue with libertarians in the same vein as Darth Stirner’s “Fascist Libertarianism” article.
I also see a potential alliance and compatibility between occidental traditionalists and libertarians; at least, those of a more minarchist persuasion. Google analytics and social networking tends to support this idea.
It is my intent to argue that the liberty so many seek will be better achieved within a more TRS narrative. That even if you do not fully agree or wish to reflect on such a matter, extenuating circumstances and a growing Fifth Column moves towards forcing your hand one way or another.
There has been a flurry of recent social media activity regarding one Christopher Cantwell, an outspoken and acerbic fellow associated with the post-Raw Paw liberty movement.
The cause of this kerfuffle? Cantwell committed the mortal sin of logically applying libertarian ideas outside the bounds of the Overton Window.
…Not surprisingly, jimmies have been rustled.
Today’s subject comes from totalfascism.
TL;DR: A brave youtuber produces an eight-minute video preaching against the evils of authoritarianism; Total Fascism’s Andrew Anglin responds with a brilliant circling of wagons.
Anglin’s response was a bit excessive, but the request for a Skype debate was nevertheless pure genius.
Fact is, a youtuber that produces trivial videos for the fedora demographic would be utterly trounced in a debate against a well-researched and dedicated ideologue like Anglin.
Response to: The 5 stages of becoming an anarchist
Maybe you’re no longer an anarchist. But TRS? NO WAY.
Some day, however, you might be.
On the road to Right Stuff, there are five stages. And unlike ancap applications of the Kübler-Ross model, you will not come out posting profile pictures looking like a goofy motherfucker.
The Non-Aggression Principle is one of those codes of honor that gets carried out by the most naive of ideologues. The An-Caps, Voluntaryists, Libertarians, and Anti-Statists are great examples. Don’t get me wrong, these guys are perfect for identifying the reasonable corruption of various institutions, however the code of honor that they live by is remarkably unrealistic and irresponsible. An act of aggression for the greater good such as forcing someone into a straitjacket so they won’t be able to shoot up heroine would be principally immoral under these premises. This simplistic individualism they hold on to has been critiqued by various left-wing, liberal, progressive douchebags, but it has also been critiqued by those of the radical-right wing such as Bulbasaur.
The thing with the NAP that shouldn’t be neglected is that it’s reliant on the Self-Ownership Principle. The idea is that because individuals own themselves, an act of aggression upon another individual is principally a crime. This is usually applied to protect the individual from the state, but can also be applied to various other institutions, collectives, or even other individuals. With that being said the NAP is pretty brilliant as an idea, as it can be applied to various subjects and issues and still be a relevant principle. Those that support the NAP however, tend to be a little lazy on how they apply it. It’s still a worthless principle.
It is a popular argument among the “classical” liberals that theirs is the correct strain of liberal thought, that the popular leftism of today has deviated too far from its roots and is no longer viable.
The classical liberal types argue that their differences in application of liberal ideals are profound; we argue that they are superficial.
That is why, in this short article, we will compare the modern liberal’s infamous “Life Of Julia” with the classical liberal’s threadbare “Free Market.”
On Tuesday July 23rd, a day which will live in infamy, Lewrockwell.com published a piece by edgytarian Fred Reed, titled “Why Sexual Integration Is A Bad Idea.”
In response to Reed’s work, three “libertarian feminists” penned an amusing retort; amusing, because their collective hissy-fit does more to support Reed’s position than his own work (which I didn’t read).
This humble article will be the type of response I do not expect to be see published on either LRC or Fred’s blog. I’ll get around to explaining why I believe this to be the case. First things first, I must dissect the choicer bits of Borowski, Reisenwitz, and Kristian’s calumnious response to Reed, a concerted effort by three women to promote individuality and feminism (lol).
A few days ago, some pretentious asshole from the urban demographic thought it cute to obstruct justice. As a direct result of his actions, this man can now spend the rest of his life associating Usher with his flailing, dying dog.
In a more sane world, this would be called a “teachable moment,” and not a heartbreaking one. C’est la vie.