The philosophical gap between Libertarianism and Fascism is surprisingly thin, given that they are essentially diametrically opposed ideologies. What the split truly comes down to is not so much a matter of whether or not Caucasians can handle living in a minarchist state without devolving into tribal-warfare, but whether or not we can do it without inviting everyone else in and committing cultural suicide. White people have an inexplicably vehement desire to raise the living standards of savages to the Caucasian level of affluence, even to our own detriment. Some even build entire academic careers on the development and expansion of complex moral theories that not only justify such altruistic behavior, but demand it.
Occasionally I wander over to Center For a Stateless Society, which operates under the tag line “Left Anarchist Think Tank and Media Center.” Aside from the mostly harmless pontifications of the relatively boring and uninspiring writer Kevin Carson, C4SS has proven to be more notable for attracting the most inane critical theory drivel imaginable from various misfits and miscellaneous social pariahs.
Some of the choicer morsels include the following:
Women experience misogyny in their day to day lives. Many individual women know things about sexual harassment, casual sexism, and a wide range of other gender issues that I will never know, because I am not a woman, and I do not experience them. Recognizing that this distributed knowledge exists has consequences. It means that I should not dismiss women’s experiences of sexism or presume I know more about sexism than they. It means that within the realm of feminist activism, I should not always have as important a decision making role as the women who actually experience the oppression caused by patriarchy. In other words, acknowledging distributed knowledge leads me to “check my privilege.”
The previous article does well to point out that, at the end of the day, the state does not choose to argue. It chooses a gun and so Hoppe’s whining about the logical implications of an argument are irrelevant. It is also good to point out that all dogmas try to defend themselves by attempting to delegitimize the very act of disagreement.
However, I disagree with the article when it states “Yes, Argumentation Ethics effectively shows that it is contradictory to argue for the initiation of force.”
Hoppe’s argument, when put in plain English, is, I think, astoundingly stupid. It is this: when two people disagree they can choose to solve their disagreement through violence or argument. Choosing to argue means that they chose not to use violence and that means that they think that aggression, as defined within the context of Neo-Lockean property rights, is a universally immoral act.
Those that have spent time in various libertarian or anarcho-capitalist political circles have probably come across the peculiar concept of Argumentation Ethics, the logical construct developed by Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe that theoretically provides the ultimate justification for the libertarian ethical doctrine of property rights and non-aggression. This theory essentially claims that libertarian property ethics are a priori true since the very act of arguing against them must necessarily accept them beforehand. Thus it is logically impossible to consistently argue against the property ethic. The idea that notions of truth and justice are valid, universal and objective is also assumed a priori by the very act of arguing over norms, since one would have to accept the necessity and validity of these concepts beforehand or else there would be no point in proposing norms in the first place.
Hoppe explains it in his typically turgid style (feel free to skip if you take my word for it):
“…any truth claim—the claim connected with any proposition that it is true, objective, or valid (all terms used synonymously here)—is and must be raised and decided upon in the course of an argumentation. And since it cannot be disputed that this is so (one cannot communicate and argue that one cannot communicate and argue), and it must be assumed that everyone knows what it means to claim something to be true (one cannot deny this statement without claiming its negation to be true), this has been aptly called ‘the a priori of communication and argumentation.’
Earlier this week, traitor and psychopath “Buffalo Bill” Manning was sentenced to serve between seven and thirty-five years at Ft. Leavenworth prison for leaking government secrets. These secrets reveal that our country does, in fact, conduct war and diplomacy.
Attentionwhore progressives have begun the process of formally canonizing this treasonous tranny; the process will likely be fast-tracked due to his trendy sexual issues. In fact, a super-duper brave Icelandic dyke has gone so far as to nominate PFC Tuck-dick for a Nobel Peace Prize.
I would rather Obama receive the award. Again.
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.
Yes, yes, everyone recognizes this is a blatant, brutishly-insulting argument against libertarianism. Hell, even *I* show you silver-hoarding freakos more respect than this article.
…But doesn’t that strike you as being a little strange?
Michael Lind is both a pedigreed author and well-connected member of the Cathedral; guest lecturer for Harvard Law, the works. I am a twenty-something statist writing under the pseudonym of a Japanese video game monster… Yet Lind’s the one blatantly trolling the Paultards. Something doesn’t add up. This article is a sub-par effort by even Salon’s Vaisya standards… Salon may not be The New York Times or The Atlantic, but neither is it Cracked.com.
What I’m getting at is that in a culture driven by subliminal messaging and viral social marketing, when something is *this* obvious it shouldn’t anger you, it should alarm you.
So, if this article isn’t meant to be a valid intellectual debunking of libertarianism (and it’s NOT), then what is the purpose?
“If you want to see Libertarians go full retard, compare them to Marxists.” –Bulbasaur
If you are like me and you have spent more time than is probably healthy in libertarian political and intellectual circles you have probably taken note of various irritating and often ironic trends peculiar to the milieu. One such trend is the tendency of libertarian activists and fellow travelers to be converts from the left. They didn’t start as libertarians and they likely will not die libertarians. Some people stay libertarian for their entire political lives, but considering the intellectual dead end of libertarian ethical constructs like the NAP, these types inevitably become pedantic, tedious bores that perseverate on the same dumbed down talking points while hawking cheap, kitschy merchandise to the latest class of noobs as they roll in. Most libertarians came to the movement from some other radical community. They are usually more than happy to share the story of their ideological journey into the light if you ask them nicely. Most of these stories, mine included, start with Marxism.
Let 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.
Perhaps the most galling aspect of the current liberal political zeitgeist is the pretense by those in power and their supporters that they have no power. Liberal intellectuals and political activists maintain the smug conceit that they are “the little guy” fighting for “progress” against a mighty enemy of reaction. Who exactly this enemy is varies depending on the particular agenda, but in all cases it is an illusion. The reactionary Goliath to the liberal David is an invention, a ghost, a spook, a mere echo of a previous era that maintains only the moribund rump of an existence in the postmodern world. That is assuming it exists at all.
Examples of this trend abound in the endless streams of mindless garbage, snarky humor and pseudo-intellectual fluff that get jammed into the internet tubes on a daily basis and pass for political commentary and analysis in our intellectually sub prime culture. From the supposedly sober and moderate opinion offered by the establishment at the NY Times down to the quasi-pornographic filth peddled by Gawker Media, every liberal intellectual and activist has their own fantasy demon to slay.