Capitalism is demonstrably shown to work. However, the attempt to intertwine the success of capitalism with the dildo granted Western society a short lived euphoria before becoming a threat to itself. I’m stating this now because for some reason, possibly to do classical conditioning, many immediately make the leap from anti-cultural dildo to inefficient economic concepts that attempt to turn the market into the church. Fascism was a demonstrable economic failure, as was communism. I know many listeners get their stupid economic information from watching hours of amateur YouTube videos praising hitlernomics (such videos may include Greatest Story Never Told, National Alliance videos, etc). We could maybe address why in fact Hitlernomics were piss poor in disective detail on another podcast, but long story short, Hitler ultimately did nothing but create a massive martial economic bubble. The economy was not built for long lasting purposes. It was built for starting a war, and winning a war. Perhaps some might argue that the Germans could maintain stability post-war by basically holding a gun to the head of the world, but that’s ultimately a ridiculous assertion. Again, topic for another time.
Classical liberalism’s champion, John Locke, was an idiot. He makes a very false assumption of humanity and Western peoples. To Locke, human and market interaction is a completely voluntary phenomenon, due to the high intellectual capacity of humans* to desire a more prosperous society through logical and peaceful evaluation. Because of this, he believed a government ought to be small, and strictly serve the whims of the populace to achieve the most prosperous and free society. He also believed all people where born into a morally equal blank state, and that all people have intrinsic value.
It sounds nice because it’s completely self-empowering. When libertarians/liberals make claims of human importance, it’s a self-valuing claim with a collective cushion; basically saying “I am very important” with safe language. Continue reading →
Some interesting stuff happened in the libertarian world yesterday.
A lady by the name of Pamela Stubbard decided to leave the organization Young Voices. She wrote a blog post explaining her reasons for resigning. The reasons involved morals and personal convictions. Pamela isn’t completely ready to give up some of the baggage, but she’s definitely on the right track; I encourage my readers to check out her article.
It doesn’t surprise me that the response from the milieu has been largely negative. Like most secular post-Christian ideologies, libertarianism does not take kindly to apostasy or heterodoxy.
However, It does surprise me to see what is being written, how the disagreement is being framed. It surprises me to see how quickly things have shifted left in the libertarian camp.
According to the new libertarianism, it is now oppression and bigotry to disagree or disassociate with things deemed “so much liberty” by individual consensus. It seems that in the absence of Ron Paul’s R3volution, libertarian feminists have successfully lowered the bar for not only libertarianism, but “petulant white girl” behavior as well.
Once upon a time, I too was once Libertarian. It all started around 2008, back when my political senses and knowledge hardly stepped beyond the boundaries of feel-good territory. When “ending violence” was my top priority. When world peace was a simple Ron Paul away. Those were the days, huh? Back when we all the problems of the world rested on the shoulders of this old republican Texan.
By solving problems, I mostly mean the legalization of marijuana.
Though my relationship with the ideology has been stormy to say the least, I ultimately concede my politics and philosophy to be libertarian.
Despite my blatant polemics, inevitably I uphold liberty, the quality to control one’s actions, as the highest end. Human society cannot work without human action, the limitations of civilization require a degree of freedom for it’s citizenry. A coherent society must seek and maintain a middle ground between these two forces. While I maintain that our current incoherence is due to embracing individual hedonism over social standards, I cannot agree with an argument that the hierarchy must always supersede the individual. From what I have seen, to invert the poisoned beliefs underling the anarchist milieu will only serve to accomplish the very same deconstruction of both man and state.
That said, I find that there is no limit of charlatans and morons willing to remind me why I took issue with libertarianism to begin with.
Old but gold, today’s article comes from a December 2013 episode of the O’Reilly Factor. The subject: a federal judge’s ruling on polygamy in Utah.
Bill O’Reilly presents us the modern, toothless, “conservative” take on not conserving much of anything in America. Andrew Napolitano offers the unbrutal and hypocritical “libertarian” perspective on the erosion of our liberty.
Both men would rather appeal to their cow-brained demo than try and discuss the serious issues underlying our culture today. Of course.
Ideological swaps have a common tendency: first, you experience a marked increase in positive feelings and energy towards your new ideology. Second, you disassociate yourself with your previous ideology and sling mud at it. You can’t take it seriously, so even if you have decent critiques of it, the best you can come up with–if you try at all–is a series of strawmen.
Reactionary circles tend to reserve a lot of venom for the Libertarian crowd, much of it well deserved when one considers the autistic neckbearded insanity of many acolytes of the NAP and Saint Rothbard. You could misspend several hours cataloging Libertarian misadventures on the subject of legal age of consent, child abandonment or who meets the criteria for moral personhood. In general though, the Libertarian position does have a few things going for it compared to the typical American political non-options.
Many harsh criticisms have been made on this site, by myself and others, of the more autistic, neckbeardy and fedoraish strains of Libertarianism. Bulbasaur in particular has gained a reputation for pouring vitriol and contempt down on Libertarianism and its bastard stepchildren, Voluntaryism and Anarcho-capitalism. I have tried to take a more moderate approach, but have not always been exactly charitable. This may have seemed like hate to many of you. The words may have stung. Some buttcheeks may have gotten red, chapped or perhaps a bit numb and tingly over the whole affair. (You know who you are.) But Let me assure you dear readers, this was not done out of hatred or anger. At least not entirely. We did it because because we cared. It was tough love. In contrast I am now offering my apology for Libertarianism.