ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

Libertarian vs Alt-Right

Jeffrey Tucker highlights the differences:
To the cheers of alt-righters everywhere, those angry lords of the green frog meme who hurl edgy un-PC insults at everyone to their left, the Democratic nominee has put them on the map at long last. Specifically, she accused Donald Trump of encouraging and giving voice to their dark and dangerous worldview.

Let’s leave aside the question of whether we are talking about an emergent brown-shirted takeover of American political culture, or perhaps merely a few thousand sock-puppet social media accounts adept at mischievous trolling on Twitter. The key issue is that more than a few alt-rightists claim some relationship to libertarianism, at least at their intellectual dawning until they begin to shed their libertarianism later on.

What are the differences in outlook between alt-right ideology and libertarianism?
  1. The Driving Force of History
  2. Harmony vs. Conflict
  3. Designed vs. Spontaneous Order
  4. Trade and Migration
  5. Emancipation and Progress
It's a pretty good comparison, although not entirely accurate about the Alt-Right and understandably biased towards libertarianism. Regardless, it serves as an effective delineator that suffices to explain why I, once one of the top 25 libertarians on the Internet, can no longer reasonably be described as a libertarian, Christian, nationalist, or otherwise.

It's not that I am opposed to libertarian ideals. Quite to the contrary, I cherish them as deeply as I ever did. It is merely that events, and a deeper understanding of history, have caused me to conclude that libertarian ideals are as ultimately utopian and irrelevant as communist ideals, progressive ideals, and conservative ideals.

I was always a minarchist libertarian; I embraced libertarianism out of pessimism towards the government. But libertarianism has turned out to be nearly as economically ignorant as Marxism, and nearly as dangerous as Leninism, Nazism, or Maoism. Mass immigration, of the sort considerably more limited than that envisioned by the purist libertarians who correctly subscribe to open borders, has proven to be at least potentially as disastrous as any of those three historically infamous ideologies. Just how bad, we don't know yet, because the scenario is still in the process of playing itself out.

The key difference between the Alt-Right and libertarianism is that libertarianism insists on the existence of Rational Man. The Alt-Right observes, to the contrary, that Man is an irrational, rationalizing creature. Where you fall on that question alone will logically dictate whether you ultimately side with the libertarians or the Alt-Right, if your ideals incline towards the libertarian.

Tucker writes: This similarity is historically contingent and largely superficial given the vast differences that separate the two worldviews. Does society contain within itself the capacity for self management or not? That is the question. 

To which the Alt-Right responds: Define society.

That being said, one intellectual subset of the Alt-Right could well be described as National Libertarianism, because, after all, once the nation has been sufficiently established and defended, it still has to decide how it will henceforth live.

Labels: , ,

207 Comments:

1 – 200 of 207 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Conan the Cimmerian November 16, 2016 11:34 AM  

that libertarian ideals are as ultimately utopian and irrelevant

Aye.

Anonymous Icicle November 16, 2016 11:35 AM  

I'm feeling dangerous. Real dangerous.

Blogger Nick November 16, 2016 11:36 AM  

Men are essentially rational. The denial of this is existentialism in philosophy and eventually progressivism and postmodernism. If the Alt-right builds a foundation on the same notion, it will falter as well.

Blogger Katabasis November 16, 2016 11:37 AM  

"It's not that I am opposed to libertarian ideals. Quite to the contrary, I cherish them as deeply as I ever did. It is merely that events, and a deeper understanding of history, have caused me to conclude that libertarian ideals are as ultimately utopian and irrelevant as communist ideals, progressive ideals, and conservative ideals."

I went through a similar transformation, Vox. Though I still hold the bulk of libertarian thought in high esteem and don't quite write it off along with communist or progressive idealism. I also have a more computationalist bent to my view on underlying human nature & our relationship with technology. I think we're capable of a form of rational self-discipline with the aid of the technologies that are interwoven with the concept of being 'human' (e.g. language) as well as those that we have a more distant relationship with (e.g. cars). Indeed it is only through that technologically assisted disciplining (language itself being such a disciplining force) that many of these technological achievements were possible.

Returning to the change of view, for me it all came down to a very simple observation - that whilst libertarian ideals are still desirable and something to aim towards, they still require a fundamental baseline of civilisation to even be *thinkable*. That baseline is under continual, sustained attack and I have little time for libertarian leaning people who seem more interested in being good little libertarian virtue-signalers rather than practically minded people with some libertarian values.

Blogger Eric Wilson November 16, 2016 11:37 AM  

I remember a number of commenters from years ago asking what you meant when you called yourself a national libertarian (I was among those wondering too). And then the alt-right basically took up the mantle of what you had been saying, whether they knew it or not. I tend to think it was sort of how Newton and Leibniz concurrently and independently invented calculus.

Anonymous Slayer November 16, 2016 11:38 AM  

You haven't been banned from twitter because you're not very important in the alt-right.

True or False?

Blogger John M November 16, 2016 11:42 AM  

Can someone explain to an ignorant person like me why anyone in his right mind would want to be libertarian? What's the motivation, long term goal? I have always seen a libertarian as someone who would rather be screwed in the ass by a big corporation than by "government", which sounds unusual.

Blogger Basil Makedon November 16, 2016 11:43 AM  

I was also a Libertarian and I still think that libertarian ideas have value. I would prefer a smaller government run society so that we can all be irrational in our own ways with minimal interference from others.

But, sadly, it isn't practical. There are always too many people who want to be told what to do, and enough people who want to order others about.

Moreover, Libertarian politics simply can't succeed in urban environments it seems where osmotic pressure enforces tribalism. It makes me wonder whether we'd be better of with a model that was more like a confederation of county-level entities rather than our federalist system of super-states.

Blogger ace November 16, 2016 11:43 AM  

He leaves out whether or not an ideology is fruitful and sustainable. Liberalism and libertarianism can lay claim to all sorts of wonderful progress, but none of that matters if what is produced is a barren society which cannot defend itself.

My sister, who had a fine suite of genes as any, swallowed this liberalism whole. She gained 150 pounds and joined something called the 'voluntary human extinction movement.' The last of her eggs should be dying soon.

It's not a civilization they are advocating for. It's a suicide pact.

Anonymous VFM #6306 November 16, 2016 11:55 AM  

"The key difference between the Alt-Right and libertarianism is that libertarianism insists on the existence of Rational Man."

Yep. Ayn Rand called it the "rational animal." Libertarians absolutely depend on what she described as the fact of "a being of volitional consciousness."

One of the things that genetics appear to indicate is that there really are, at a minimum, hybrid subspecies of men that are "more beastly" than others. If you prefer to be a gentleman about it, you can instead describe "short time preferences" and "violence-related portions of the human genome."

But scientage is accommodating this dawning truth: that there are breeds of men among the people of Earth, with - at best - wildly varying degrees of "volitional consciousness."

And as scientage determines in many ways the course of scientody, it is obvious that eventually scientism will be making massive adjustments in the future on Man as thinking animal, or else shall degenerate entirely into magic.

Blogger Basil Makedon November 16, 2016 12:03 PM  

Technically speaking, I think the assumption was that you could MODEL humans on a large scale as if they were rational actors, not that they ARE actually individually rational actors.

Blogger Shimshon November 16, 2016 12:12 PM  

Sniff. You really get me.

Seriously though, many of us have gone through this ride with you.

Some of them do seem to get that identity and culture do actually matter. That some people are ineducable, and others are capable of understanding the concept, but will co-opt it at the first opportunity to their collective benefit. They are alt-right friendly. I've sensed a certain sympathy to Trump from them.

Others are extraordinarily dogmatic in the face of increasing evidence that it is exactly as Utopian as you say. No argument, none, has worked on the ones I have tried it on.

Anonymous Axe Head November 16, 2016 12:13 PM  

Sixth difference: winning vs. losing.

Blogger S1AL November 16, 2016 12:16 PM  

"Others are extraordinarily dogmatic in the face of increasing evidence that it is exactly as Utopian as you say. No argument, none, has worked on the ones I have tried it on."

One libertarian I was discussing politics with said, in regards to immigration and cosmopolitan societies, "I think it's probably possible, buy I don't think we need to be the ones to try". I was so proud.

That may provide an entry point for the argument: concede that is theoretically possible, but point out that it's not working and the potential cost is too high.

Blogger Deadmau5 Patton November 16, 2016 12:16 PM  

Vox,
I'm a 1/16th Amerind and 15/16th's Anglo with a black as coal wife. We have 3 adopted kids ranging in slant eyedness from pure Korean to Polynesian but IDENTIFY as libertarian Americans. What part of the country should they live in and what should I do with my life?

Somebody help me, please.

Blogger Nick November 16, 2016 12:17 PM  

"The Alt-Right observes, to the contrary, that Man is an irrational, rationalizing creature."

What impulse drives the rationalizations of men, if not some kind of rational impulse?



Blogger JDC November 16, 2016 12:22 PM  

This may be tangential, but have other president-elects been subjected to so much advice before their terms even began? Harry Reid demanding Trump rescind Bannon's appointment. Obama's warning against "crude nationalism." Every media shill with a mouth giving him advice.

The irony is that they are concern trolling someone who doesn't give a f**k about their opinion, unless it may further his plan. My righteous joy this past week had one minor blip, MI's loss to IA.

Even though I'm suffering from some severe colitis issues, the Trumpening has healed me! (By healed I mean given me something to read and/or watch while I get no sleep for a week).

God bless the alt-right, the dread ilk, the vile ones and Vox Day. What a great day! (To add to my joy I leave tonight for a week of blessed hunting in MI's U.P.). My aught six is cleaned and zeroed, the Glenlivet and steaks are packed, and my stomach should be good for at least two weeks.

Blogger S1AL November 16, 2016 12:22 PM  

"I'm a 1/16th Amerind and 15/16th's Anglo with a black as coal wife. We have 3 adopted kids ranging in slant eyedness from pure Korean to Polynesian but IDENTIFY as libertarian Americans. What part of the country should they live in and what should I do with my life?

Somebody help me, please."

Assuming you're serious and not trolling, I'd recommend a soft-urban military area, a la Colorado Springs.

Blogger Ingot9455 November 16, 2016 12:24 PM  

Man does not naturally seek truth, Nick. We seek to tell ourselves a story that works for us. When that story fails, it is possible for some of us to seek a corrected story.

Blogger Shimshon November 16, 2016 12:24 PM  

I pointed out to one person that Rothbard himself started to recognize the problem of pure libertarianism (Thanks for the tip, Vox! You do the research so I don't have to. Uh, wait...). He even admitted he was familiar with the material, but then insisted that Rothbard certainly recanted later, even admitting there's no proof that he did.

I bet Rothbard, were he alive today, would have endorsed, perhaps even voted (maybe not go that far) for Trump.

Blogger Shimshon November 16, 2016 12:25 PM  

"Assuming you're serious and not trolling, I'd recommend a soft-urban military area, a la Colorado Springs."

I don't know if it's a troll, but it's funny. And I think that's the actual intent.

Blogger S1AL November 16, 2016 12:26 PM  

Yeah, Poe's Law. What do?

Blogger Deadmau5 Patton November 16, 2016 12:29 PM  

@19 i wasn't really trolling,but i wasn't serious. it was my attempt at poking a bit of fun at the advice seekers. I understand their issue, and it is a serious thing they need to consider, but there is something funny about it,too.

I'm pretty new here, so if I was out of line to mock anyone let me know and I'll delete the comment.

Blogger August November 16, 2016 12:29 PM  

Tucker started hyperventilating about Trump a while ago, so he's completely unfit for this type of analysis. I've heard a couple of optimistic things come out of Reason and Cato. And I am mostly libertarian anyway- and I figured it was all likely to be horrible, but Trump brings a chance for not-horrible. He raises the uncertainty level, which upsets those likely to have the vapors, but a big chance of something different means at least a small chance for something that works.

Blogger Orville November 16, 2016 12:29 PM  

@14 Yeah, while sympathetic to small government, Big and little L libertarians are as a class a bunch of losers of the worst kind.

I'm at peace that with the fact that the God-Emperor will not reduce the size and scope of government. As long as he is shifting the federal mass towards the alt-right I will be happy.

Blogger Orville November 16, 2016 12:30 PM  

Gary Johnson. Loser, nerd, nutjob. Need I say more.

Blogger Minecraft Chuck November 16, 2016 12:30 PM  

If you believe people are rational, you haven't met many people.

Man does not behave in his rational self interest. Man behaves in his emotional self interest.

Blogger Innostran November 16, 2016 12:31 PM  

Given that Libertarian-style societies and governments largely appear to have been historically possible only in Northern European or specifically Anglophone countries, it seems obvious to me that actual Libertarians should be interested in maintaining homogeneous Northern Euro/Anglo countries, but then again I am alt-West/National Libertarian.

Anonymous Fisher November 16, 2016 12:31 PM  

Nick wrote:Men are essentially rational. The denial of this is existentialism in philosophy and eventually progressivism and postmodernism. If the Alt-right builds a foundation on the same notion, it will falter as well.

Ah.

Anonymous VFM #6306 November 16, 2016 12:32 PM  

"Technically speaking, I think the assumption was that you could MODEL humans on a large scale as if they were rational actors, not that they ARE actually individually rational actors."

Same difference. No more accurate than basing a model of global warming for earth on the fantasy that CO2 is poisonous to ice.

Anonymous VFMUltra November 16, 2016 12:32 PM  

This post brought out some real winners I see. Most people, but especially those who subscribe to any of the major political ideologies, are trying in vain to view the world through prisms that reality has shrouded in darkness. They fail in the same way believers in AGW and macro evolution fail; for all their supposed wisdom, their models can not predict anything in the future, and the more they use their models to study the past the more off their future predictions become.

That is why the Alt-Right will keep winning. They are the only ones observing what is actually happening and orienting themselves accordingly. Orwellian double-speak and powerful propaganda machines can not change what people can see through their living room windows or what they feel when they walk through their own neighborhoods. The Alt-Right is the Oracle that looks around and proceeds accordingly.

Blogger Shimshon November 16, 2016 12:32 PM  

He might've said that Rothbard, had he lived longer, would certainly have changed his mind. Either way, a totally idiotic way to refute serious scholarly work by his self-declared hero.

Anonymous Icicle November 16, 2016 12:34 PM  

Gary Johnson. Loser, nerd, nutjob. Need I say more.

You need to stick your tongue out as you say that.

Blogger Nick November 16, 2016 12:34 PM  

Here's something we don't do by nature: love your enemy.

That's counter-intuitive.

Seeking truth isn't unnatural nor is it counter-intuitive. Men tell themselves stories, because they don't like the truth they already know and can do nothing about.

Anonymous VFM #6306 November 16, 2016 12:35 PM  

Just put it quotes, next time, Deadmau5. Then it will look sarcastic.

Blogger S1AL November 16, 2016 12:36 PM  

"I'm pretty new here, so if I was out of line to mock anyone let me know and I'll delete the comment."

Mockery is part of happy hour here. And it's always happy hour (doubly so if Nate is commenting). But it's actually impossible to tell these days (thus, Poe's Law), since I know families like that...

Blogger Shimshon November 16, 2016 12:37 PM  

Deadmau5, I thought it was funny, and appropriate. How many people have asked the SAME question, with the SAME answer patiently provided by Vox, every time? It's a trope now.

Blogger Shimshon November 16, 2016 12:39 PM  

Okay, not all the same answer. The Englishman was told to leave. The others, various forms of, aggressively assimilate and you'll likely be fine.

Anonymous c0pperheaded November 16, 2016 12:40 PM  

I always think about George Plimpton in Good Will Hunting when I hear or see Jeffrey Tucker.

https://youtu.be/ftl_ckcpZgY

Blogger VD November 16, 2016 12:45 PM  

Men are essentially rational.

No, they're not. You're a case in point. There is literally nothing rational about your position. You're just regurgitating observably false information that you were given by someone else.

You're also uninformed and out of date on the current science as well as the current economics.

Seeking truth isn't unnatural nor is it counter-intuitive. Men tell themselves stories, because they don't like the truth they already know and can do nothing about.

Stop babbling, Nick. You're observably way too short for this ride.

Blogger tz November 16, 2016 12:46 PM  

I'd think there is a new Alt-Archism. Up from Losertarianism. Molyneux is probably the best exemplar - Rational people eventually know irrationality is the default, perhaps not as bad as Scott Adams, but you have to deal with the demos or polis you have, not the one you want.

The polite, highly rational discussions that occurred - often vehement - that our founding fathers had aren't possible when schools substitute Ritalin for discipline and education and when you fill Universities with screeching SJWs.

Culture is upstream of politics, and the Alt-Right treasures rational discourse, so as we return to greatness, we can have a rational, educated (not propagandized), virtuous, moral people. When you have that, liberty can flourish.

But to get to my alt-archist manifesto, it is based on Vox's three pillars

Winning - Don't tell me about how things might work in utopia, find a chunk of government and tear it down, from your Homeowner's association to the latest EPA fatwa. The Losertarian think tanks have been only slightly more effective than Cuckservatism Inc. - the Government just kept getting bigger and bigger, and the Party is now a total joke. It is better to get one law repealed, one fee or tax cut, then to write a scholarly article on an abstraction. Militancy over theory, and the target is so huge you can't miss it.

Rule of Law - I only care if you've successfully done something, or at least fought hard and effectively, don't tell me what I or X should have done to win. I also don't care how many people follow you on Twitter or Facebook. Also, don't be a hypocrite - if your income depends on barriers to entry or the state, or that is how you made your money before you suddenly became libertarian, then you should sit quietly, or go create those jobs for the workers you rendered unemployed by "free trade". (Molyneux "Why I was wrong about libertarians").

Western Civilization - Liberty doesn't exist in a vacuum or as a Platonic object, look to the historic record. We can see how minimal the minarchy can be, but we need to get back to and restart from a known point, and America 1.0 is well known and achievable. See point 1, and when the 95% of stuff we all agree on is gone, we can talk, but until then, act. And remember liberty isn't so you can die with the most toys, but live the best possible life - and achieve sainthood in heaven if you believe.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents November 16, 2016 12:49 PM  

@3
Men are essentially rational. The denial of this is existentialism in philosophy and eventually progressivism and postmodernism.

Well, the authors of the Constitution disagree with you. Read the Federalist and anti Federalist papers. There's more than one mention of passions of the moment. 18th century thinkers were well aware of the passionate, irrational nature of men and planned accordingly.

Libertarians not only run with the false premise of human rationality, they double down by also believing in the blank slate. That combination is what has led to libtardism.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents November 16, 2016 12:51 PM  

@16
What impulse drives the rationalizations of men, if not some kind of rational impulse?

Irrational impulses. Must we repeat the parable of the scorpion and the frog for you?

Anonymous brother-in -Christ November 16, 2016 12:54 PM  

I was never in the military but I considered myself a Christian fighter sometimes. I even used the word solider. I believe I had a form of PTSD for a while. I was happy when I finally got cured of my PTSD.

Anonymous Axe Head November 16, 2016 12:55 PM  

Those of you stuck on "Rational Man" need to read Haidt's "The Righteous Mind."

Blogger dc.sunsets November 16, 2016 12:55 PM  

I went through the Republican-to-Libertarian Party-to-individualist anarachism (i.e., pure market order libertarian, all essential services provided on the market, no politics) but eventually realized two truths:
1. Value is subjective.
2. The map is not the territory.

Libertarianism (and all other Utopian -isms) posit that there is one best way to organize Mankind, and once established, a permanent plateau of Nirvana will emerge. It's all about how you structure the rules, don't you know?

I finally realized this is absurd. Market prices are by definition subjective. So, too, is what constitutes "optimal" in every aspect of human endeavor. It's beyond foolish to think one Grand Unifying Set of Rules will permanently satisfy different people each of whom experience differing value-structures minute-by-minute, and whose very nature (driven by brain structures) informs a history of manias, fads, fashions and all other cyclical phenomena.

No Elliottician or Socionomist could be an individualist-anarchist or any kind of serious philosophical libertarian. The latter must reject Man's social behavior.

Also, Tucker is among the odd leftist-libertarians, the ones who think libertarian philosophy can be squared with the Welfare State. As such, his entire paradigm is disqualified as internally incoherent in my view. In his words, even when I was a libertarian I was one of the reviled "brutalist" subgroup.

Blogger Earl November 16, 2016 12:58 PM  

No way! Man's heart is often deceived by sin. This fact points to The Truth. And when you find Truth existential relativism should die.

Blogger Phat Repat November 16, 2016 12:59 PM  

One of my favorite quotes from George Bernard Shaw is:
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

I suspect many in the alt-right are justifiably unreasonable.

Blogger Deplorable Gaiseric November 16, 2016 1:00 PM  

Deadmau5 Patton wrote:Vox,

I'm a 1/16th Amerind and 15/16th's Anglo with a black as coal wife. We have 3 adopted kids ranging in slant eyedness from pure Korean to Polynesian but IDENTIFY as libertarian Americans. What part of the country should they live in and what should I do with my life?

Somebody help me, please.

There's your problem. You should have been 1/16 Han Chinese, 1/16 Mongolian, 1/2 Scandinavian and 3/8 from the specific community of Fengate in Cambridgeshire, with a wife that was an albino half Maori half Tasmanian Pacific Islander, with adopted kids who are South African Bush people who identify as Red Men from Barsoom.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 16, 2016 1:02 PM  

@ Nick, man is obviously capable of reason (or at least some of us are), but the notion that reason or rationality drive any human social behavior is belied by every moment of history.

Humans have two basic tracks for mentation: the rational track and the impulsive track. The latter is semi-synonymous with emotion, or activities driven by the limbic system of the brain.

History is a long tapestry of patterned rises and falls, and only in hindsight do people assign cause for effect. This is laughably absurd, because such things never, ever, even once are useful in avoiding similar conditions later (AKA history repeats, or at least rhymes.)

If you want to see how "rational" are people, go to a betting track, a casino, or watch what small investors do in the futures markets. It's one hilarious example of irrationality after another, where tops arrive when people are surest the rally will extend, and bottoms occur when everyone is most certain that the only direction possible is lower.

Blogger tz November 16, 2016 1:07 PM  

Men are rational in the same sense that Churchill observed of America always doing the right thing - only after they've exhausted all the alternatives.

One thing often missed in Lewis Abolition is very specific - Man is a PASSIONATE animal, but these must be trained to rightly order them and create virtue in the child so that when reason and rationality LATER comes in, it will reinforce the virtue.

This is the key thing most Libetarians deny, and are irrational about - they won't even look or test the assertion that vice and evil is the product of ignorance, so can be educated out. But truth is not goodness. St. Paul asks "Why do things I don't want to do?". And the Devil and demons know more than we will ever know short of eternity. Everyone knows smoking is bad for you, so why is it so hard to quit? Same with obesity. Or sex outside marriage. Long, dry explanations don't change behavior. Shaming is only slightly effective, but the short and sharp intermittent bad feelz doesn't override the cravings. And as Molyneux pointed out, power is literally addicting.

Imagine if a brain implant zapped your brain's pleasure center with the power of 10 orgasms every time some socialist policy was mentioned and hit the pain center every time liberty or freedom was. That is the lowest level, even below passions. The passions might be worse because romance blinds worse than pride. The facade of good or bad placed out of emotion. You feel bad when you don't act on pity - but the action is often buying booze for a drunk.

The Alt-Right has realized they must destroy the adversary, and it is unpleasant and painful, but must be done. The scene in Perelandra where Ransom finally figures out that his arguments have failed a dozen times though the Lady has resisted, but if it doesn't stop the Lady would eventually fall. But he can only stop it by killing the un-man by beating him to death, and discovers what Hate was created for.

If your dog has become rabid, you must kill it, usually by shooting it. It doesn't mean it hasn't been a faithful companion, in fact you are doing the only good thing.

Civilization abhors violence, and Western civilization abhors coercion. That is both our strength and weakness. We are right to hate it, but we must at times coerce the coercers.

The alt-right are the new Crusaders taking the fight to reclaim the holy land since the barbarians occupying it went too far.

Blogger Nick November 16, 2016 1:07 PM  

You still haven't answered my question.

What compels men to rationalize at all?

As for my other remarks, I don't see how it's babbling? Maybe it's disagreeable or even wrong but babbling is just semantically wrong friend.

In Freudian terms, story telling is a form of wish fulfillment. It's a coping mechanism. It's not an essential characteristic; it's a weakness. But whatever.

I'm ready for your remarks, Nietzsche lol. Or is it Jean Paul? Albert Camus?

But then, I'm the one regurgitating obviously false information.

Blogger Deadmau5 Patton November 16, 2016 1:14 PM  

@49 I was playing checkers on the 4D racial chessboard.

Question for anyone who feels like answering- how is the irrationality of man accounted for in economic systems in terms of how it effects the ability to predict, or at least the ability to predict accurately?
I ask because I often read economic news and notice everything from GDP to company earnings being adjusted, and I wonder how much is error in measurement, and how much is due to wrong assumptions about human behavior in markets.

Blogger Durandel Almiras November 16, 2016 1:14 PM  

Amen Vox. I heard of you from my Mises Institute following days over a decade ago. And I've been on this ride with you ever since.

The post perfectly encapsulates for many of us how we journeyed into becoming the Alt-Right, especially the part about whether man is rational or rationalizing. Once I accepted the latter, it was hard to accept the utopia pipe dream of the Libertarians.

That and watching how the Liberals seeks to subvert society and civilization. Libertarian minarchy would crumble faster under than onslaught than this corpse of a Republic.

Blogger Roger Hill November 16, 2016 1:14 PM  

"That being said, one intellectual subset of the Alt-Right could well be described as National Libertarianism, because, after all, once the nation has been sufficiently established and defended, it still has to decide how it will henceforth live."

I'm very glad you added this bit at the end. I see nothing contradictory in the idea of a nation being politically libertarian within its own domain, while keeping full check on its borders and cultural identity. Such a state will not allow open borders. Nor will such a state be inclined to go looking for trouble outside its borders.

Blogger OGRE November 16, 2016 1:15 PM  

I never understood why open borders and international trade were considered hallmarks of libertarianism. Does not the right of free association inherently include the right to prohibit entry into the group? Is there not a corresponding right of disassociation? Certainly a libertarian would not agree that a church or business partnership must accept all those who wish to join in the endeavor. (And clearly some who would wish to join would be destructive to the purpose of the organization.) And the ultimate basis of private property rights is the ability to exclude others from use and occupation of said property. And if we then apply those principals on a national scale rather than just at the individual level, a nation of freely associating individuals can certainly exclude any outsiders who wish to join--or immigrate--into the group. How could it possibly be libertarian to remove the ability to exclude those who are openly anti-libertarian and who would actively work to destroy any vestige of libertarianism?

(I'd also hold that it is a gross violation of rights to force an individual to remain a part of the group if he desired to leave it. Thus, in simplest terms: free immigration=bad, free emigration=good.)

Anonymous DissidentRight November 16, 2016 1:17 PM  

Obviously man can be selfless...he just typically isn't. Obviously man can be rational...he just typically isn't. Any theory of human relations that ignores this is doomed.

Libertarians have plenty of great insights, but the problem is they try to make Libertarianism a Theory of Everything (in human relations)...which only succeeds in demonstrating that man is primarily a rationalizing creature, not a rational one.

Blogger haus frau November 16, 2016 1:18 PM  

I would describe myself as libertarian still but with a lot of caveats. The open-borders stateless society libertarians have always impressed me as every bit as delusional as any Marxist. Culture matters. It matters immensely even if you don't believe there's a genetic basis for it. Scandinavia with its deep rooted socialism still functions fairly decently because the natives fully internalized certain behavioral norms. They could easily handle a libertarian type government because their natural behavior wouldn't have to change that much to accommodate a mostly voluntary political system. Now they are importing low trust barbarians and the system is predictably collapsing. Libertarianism in its purest form might work with some small groups but cannot be overlaid on the vast majority of groups because it would require a religious like conversion in behavioral norms that very likely have genetic components.

Blogger haus frau November 16, 2016 1:21 PM  

Furthermore, I should note that I wouldn't expect Scandinavia to ever go libertarian even though limited government would benefit them generally. The socialism appears to be tenaciously genetic as anyone in the upper midwest can observe.

Blogger tz November 16, 2016 1:30 PM  

Reading the five differences, one thing is missing.
The Alt-Right is only authoritarian to the extent required to destroy the oppressive government and the leftist PC SJW effect on speech.
It required shooting Red Coats and purging Loyalists to throw off George 3 and Parliament.
The Alt-Right is militant, but as the libertarian sticker says: "Plotting to take over the world to leave you alone". The first part about taking over the world needed to be done and it is being done. #Brexit is severing Britain from the EUrocracy. Trump is shattering the elite uniparty finance media politician cabal.
The difference is the Alt-Right is taking over. Yes, it has the ring of power, but The God Emperor Hobbit will really throw it into the fires of Mt. Doom, and we won't worry about the number of Orcs crushed under the rubble of Barad-Dur, nor the Nazgul that will go poof!. The Cuckish Boromirs and Sarumans are gone.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 16, 2016 1:30 PM  

@ Nick, as a biologist, I prefer biological explanations for how people think (including rationalize.)

I believe pg 12 of this paper touches on this.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1495051

Bottom line: We are animals. Animals' behavior (including systems of brain function) is entirely driven by biological structures of central nervous system. A long history of neuroscience research documents how in many experimental models people make a decision FIRST, and only afterward arrive at the "why" they made it (AKA rationalization.)

Is this what you were looking for?

Blogger Joshua_D November 16, 2016 1:34 PM  

Nick wrote:You still haven't answered my question.

What compels men to rationalize at all?



Not what, but rather, "Who".

It is God who compels Men to rationalize.

Anonymous Damn Crackers November 16, 2016 1:34 PM  

Quick question:

Hasn't Michael Savage been crying out the same themes of the Alt-Right for over 20 years on his radio show? If not, what are the differences?

Blogger Nick November 16, 2016 1:35 PM  

You're right. Here's another hilarious example: people actually buy things like "Gorilla Mindset". And for what?

Strange that a group of men like Molyneux, Cernovich, Vox Day, operate more like gurus than bona fide teachers with an earnest desire to help others learn. But then, you realize these are men that genuinely believe we're all basically irrational. It must be easy to sell shit to others and laugh as your followers eat it. It must give theme a great sense of pride. Most of these people here buy into these idea and are easily manipulated after just like men down at the horse track.

Blogger tz November 16, 2016 1:35 PM  

Libertarians have plenty of great insights, but the problem is they try to make Libertarianism a Theory of Everything (in human relations)...which only succeeds in demonstrating that man is primarily a rationalizing creature, not a rational one.
It is easier to sit in an ivory tower theorizing than to get out in the trenches and fight to implement them. But they even rationalize that.

The old term was Liberal, but there is still a lot in common. Liberals start wars they expect others to fight but never enlist. Liberals tell you how you should run your life and are generally sneering know-it-alls who have never dealt in the actual free market, but that description also fits many libertarians.

Blogger Joshua_D November 16, 2016 1:36 PM  

Rationality is to irrationality as Salvation is to sin.

Anonymous BGKB November 16, 2016 1:38 PM  

Can someone explain to an ignorant person like me why anyone in his right mind would want to be libertarian?

So they can smoke all the free trade legal pot they want.

Blogger haus frau November 16, 2016 1:43 PM  

@52 What compels men to rationalize at all?

What gives you the impression that anything at all compels men to rationalize? Rationalization is inherent to humanity.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 16, 2016 1:44 PM  

@48 Haus Frau, I gave up trying to self-describe when I gave up claiming I have a clue as to how things should be structured.

I agree wholly with Hans Hermann Hoppe: a state operated by caretakers (renters) is more defective than one operated by people who feel an ownership interest (hereditary monarchs.) I agree with VD that the externalities of things like "free trade" amount to torts of some people against others, but I also acknowledge there is no non-subjective way to decide if allowing a Chinese-made wrench into the USA at $1/each is "better" than slapping it with a $10 tariff so a US-made $10/each wrench (and the entire domestic infrastructure its manufacture entails) can be sustained. There is no way to enumerate, spreadsheet-style, the subjective elements in that (or a million other) example(s.) Someone has to make those judgments.

I guess the best I'd hope for is the polity where I am a member achieves enough homogeneity that political consensus emerges, and I'd accept the mix of pro's and con's of that consensus personally, whatever it produces. To the extent that I form a polity with like-minded people, no "heavy hand of government," democratic or monarchical, liberty-minded or totalitarian would be necessary.

As to those aforementioned judgments, the recent crop of assholes pursued "judgments" that promised to destroy me and the polity I prefer. Therein lies our problem, often highlighted: diversity within a polity promises war.

Anonymous DGM November 16, 2016 1:47 PM  

Politically I started with Ayn Rand and saw myself as a laissez-faire capitalist. But I've been moving away from that of late, and this site has been an influence.

I'm curious if the Alt-Right has a category for me yet, as the taxonomy seems to still be evolving. Can anyone tell me who "my people" are?



1) I believe a government's first duty is to protect and uphold the rights of its OWN citizens, not to serve the world. So I guess I'm SOME sort of nationalist now.

2) I believe that self-defense is the fundamental right, with the rights of liberty and property being applications of it. The government should see to our defense first and leave us free to defend ourselves when it can't, and then allow as much liberty and property rights as possible within that frame.

I don't believe in "positive rights" at all, though I do believe liberty and property may have to be curtailed in the name of self-defense sometimes. For example I'd be fine with a law saying that businesses can't ban guns, since self-defense trumps property.

3) I do believe that immigration has to be limited and that the immigrants must be required to assimilate. This is because politics is downstream from culture and if you let in too many people who don't believe in the above rights, politics will change to the point where they won't be enforced anymore. So this is kind of an extension of #2.

I'm not convinced yet that a multiracial society is impossible if everyone shares the same culture, but I do believe that a multicultural society is a bad idea.

4) I'm willing to accept some economic inefficiency for a more restrained government. When I hear an economic policy proposed I don't think "how will this affect the economy," I think "how will this get abused when the wrong people win an election."



So how would I be categorized?

Blogger James Dixon November 16, 2016 1:49 PM  

> Okay, not all the same answer. The Englishman was told to leave. The others, various forms of, aggressively assimilate and you'll likely be fine.

The Englishman made it clear he thought he was better than us ("had a lot to offer") and any assimilation should be on our part.

> In Freudian terms, story telling is a form of wish fulfillment.

That sentence alone demonstrates that you absolutely have no clue what you're talking about.

> Question for anyone who feels like answering- how is the irrationality of man accounted for in economic systems in terms of how it effects the ability to predict, or at least the ability to predict accurately?

I believe Keynes used the term "animal spirits" a lot.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable November 16, 2016 1:49 PM  

But then, you realize these are men that genuinely believe we're all basically irrational.

I don't know about irrational, but definitely fallen. Our capacity for rationality is untrustworthy.

Blogger Joshua_D November 16, 2016 1:51 PM  

DGM wrote:
Can anyone tell me who "my people" are?


You're nation is your people. Where are you from?

Blogger Sam Lively November 16, 2016 1:53 PM  

@7

The intellectual and moral high ground it afforded young conservatives shamed by the Bushes was quite attractive.

It furnished compelling arguments against both neocon insanity and leftist totalitarianism. You could even rail against Wall Street through the Fed.

Its appeal to conservatives started to wane when the bailout blues faded and the Culture Wars returned to the fore. The ardent social leftism and anti-nationalism of our new technocratic corporate elite traced an outline of an iron fist around the invisible hand.

Blogger dc.sunsets November 16, 2016 1:54 PM  

@64 Nick, It must be easy to sell shit to others and laugh as your followers eat it. It must give theme a great sense of pride. Most of these people here buy into these idea and are easily manipulated after just like men down at the horse track.

None of us constructs our gestalt from the ground up, de novo, all by ourselves. You know this, so why shoot at the generators (or aggregators) of ideas?

I'm smart enough to know my limits. I've watched my own hand make trades my rational mind screamed "NOOOOOO!" (to no avail.) I've indulged in vice, and I've followed one guru after another, only to eventually accept that no one has the answers, no one can predict the future. Do I hate or even disrespect those men who I followed, in most cases at considerable personal cost?

No. My poster child for this is Prechter. Very bright guy, I think he's onto something real in terms of how humans in social settings behave. Does he "sell" his work as a mechanism for stock trading? Yes, to some extent. Does it work? Not for me (or a lot of others.) Does this invalidate his model? Not in my view.

People learn, and then they mature and often they move on. When you are able to obtain that kind of stature, please do let the rest of us know...in the meantime, spare us your highbrow critique.

Blogger VD November 16, 2016 1:55 PM  

You still haven't answered my question. What compels men to rationalize at all?

Nor am I going to. The question is off-topic and irrelevant.

As for my other remarks, I don't see how it's babbling? Maybe it's disagreeable or even wrong but babbling is just semantically wrong friend.

If you knew it was babbling, you'd be smart enough to avoid doing it. Now, go away.

Strange that a group of men like Molyneux, Cernovich, Vox Day, operate more like gurus than bona fide teachers with an earnest desire to help others learn. But then, you realize these are men that genuinely believe we're all basically irrational. It must be easy to sell shit to others and laugh as your followers eat it. It must give theme a great sense of pride. Most of these people here buy into these idea and are easily manipulated after just like men down at the horse track.

Good to know my idiot gamma radar is still working. Fuck off, Nick. You're banned.

Blogger James Dixon November 16, 2016 1:56 PM  

> ... people actually buy things like "Gorilla Mindset". And for what?

Probably because they think it may offer some insight which they find useful. Since you obviously know everything already, there's no need for you to waste your money.

> Strange that a group of men like Molyneux, Cernovich, Vox Day, operate more like gurus than bona fide teachers with an earnest desire to help others learn.

Been here for all of one post and you already know everything about Vox, huh? You must be a genius of unparalleled magnitude.

> But then, you realize these are men that genuinely believe we're all basically irrational.

They have history on their side. You have histrionics.

> Most of these people here buy into these idea and are easily manipulated after just like men down at the horse track.

Heh. How little you know of the Ilk.

Blogger James Dixon November 16, 2016 1:58 PM  

> Good to know my idiot gamma radar is still working. Fuck off, Nick. You're banned.

Sorry, Vox. I was responding while you posted. :(

OpenID doktorjeep November 16, 2016 2:02 PM  

All over the map today....



I think one major difference is in the way libertarians view privatization and "every road is a toll road" as an answer to "muh roads" compared to the alt-right view from what might be called "national capitalism".

The perspective of national capitalism is capitalism but with guidance as in "is this good for the country and the people?"

Would it be good for the country and the people if merchants and privateers are nickle-and-diming everybody to death?

As for "Muh Roads"™ well traditionally it was landlords who owned them and required serfs to build and maintain them. So under a libertarian system how far do we get from that program?


Hence a fatal flaw of libertarianism: it lacks natural defenses from degeneracy, democracy, mercantilism, and both crony socialism and crony capitalism.

At a Mises circle once (and this is not to denigrate Lew Rockwell) one of the speakers talked about how workers in a factory might, on their spare time, get together and create their own factory if they felt they wanted to make more money and could do it better.

Yeah, sure. In a 100 percent purely libertarian setup that has probably not existed since 1789. If it existed at all.

In the real world, the owner of the factory will grease the politicians to ensure that anybody else wanting a factory would have truckloads of regulations and red tape to overcome first.

And he will do it because he can.

Anyways, it's interesting to see how die-hard libertarians are having trouble with national capitalism concepts. It's still capitalism, but it tells the merchant/crony "No, you will be screwing people over with that business model and therefore, you don't get to do that (points gun at head)".

Evil? Wrong? Violation of the NAP? Perhaps. But libertarians have a knack for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. For example, when some business or land owner says "NO guns on my property!" and libertarians are there to say "yep yep, property rights!" but if someone said "NO gays on my property!" the same libertarians are nowhere to be found. What happened to property rights now?

In a way, the destruction of the libertarian movement, facilitated by being taken over by leftist degenerates, is going to pave the way for National Concealed Carry because now, this time, they won't be in the way of it using "states rights!" in the wrong time and place. The same "States rights!" libertarians who get in the way of national concealed carry before were, as usual, non-existent when the feds were using lawfare on states resisting gay marriage and trannies in bathrooms.

Thus libertarianism is likely fully converged. In fact, libertarians love the Firefly series, a product of Hoss Wheedon, who donated a lot of money to Hillary - but this comes as no surprise to me. In Seattle back in 2011 there was some big LGBT acceptance push and you can still find the t-shirts in some stores and those shirts have Firefly imagery. Funny it was roughly around 2011 that libertarianism was beginning the process of being pozzed.

Blogger James Dixon November 16, 2016 2:04 PM  

> Violation of the NAP?

The non-agression principle is one of my principle problems with the Libertarians. I'm sorry, I reserve the right to shoot first when I know it's necessary.

Blogger Tom Bridgeland November 16, 2016 2:08 PM  

Immigration broke me from hard-core libertarianism. I like the US. And I like other countries with distinct national cultures. What point if they all blend together? I view each nation as a home, as private property of the citizens who live there. I get to decide who enters my yard.

Anonymous Just another commenter November 16, 2016 2:10 PM  

Interesting stuff. Yes, as new data becomes known positions should evolve. I used to be a "small 'L' libertarian. But because I didn't support the leftists, socialists, and Democrats (but I repeat myself), my friends of a different persuasion just branded me "Republican" no mater how many times I pointed out things about republican candidates or positions I didn't like, or agreed with them on a particular point. Now I can just say I'l alt-right and watch them freak out, or say I alt-west and watch them babble in confusion.

I won't go so far as to say "life is good," but it certainly has its entertaining moments.

Blogger Bard November 16, 2016 2:12 PM  

Nick, they all support each other thus supporting the cause. They self promote, but they believe in their product. They are becoming house hold names and are building something better. They should profit and deserve our support. Quit bitching and do, support those who already are, but stop criticizing. Where is your podcast, publishing company, blog, website, t shirt company, alt tech start up? You stand by those who will stand by you. Look at Trump. Rare is the man that is happy when another man succeeds. Don't harbor envy, do what they did, do it yourself.

Anonymous DGM November 16, 2016 2:13 PM  

@73

>> "You're nation is your people. Where are you from?"

U.S.A., all my life. But that's not what I meant. I was asking what branch of the Alt-right I would be considered a part of (if any).

Blogger Wishing Star November 16, 2016 2:14 PM  

I've witnessed so many people flee or struggle with math in my time, that I believe logic may be more of rarity than many imagine.

Blogger pyrrhus November 16, 2016 2:15 PM  

Complete scientific and historical ignorance is required to believe that the invasion of one culture and gene pool by large numbers of people from different cultures and gene pools will result in anything but societal collapse and war. Latest example--Yugoslavia. Yet educated Libertarians continue to pursue this suicidal formula. Why? Virtue signaling IMO....
But most people on Vox Popoli are well aware of that.

Anonymous Bob Just November 16, 2016 2:15 PM  

Some deep material (Rational/Irrational)- Vox this would make for a good subject for a vid with Cerno, Stefan and yourself

@ dc.sunsets - the more I learn about - Alzheimer's - music - memory,
Parkinson's - IR light - gait, consciousness models,
microbrain advanced math students,
biophonons and biophotons signaling it makes me think more about the brain/structure as a receiver theory

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/remarkable-story-of-maths-genius-who-had-almost-no-brain-1.1026845

Blogger VoodooJock November 16, 2016 2:16 PM  

libertarians tend to not fight back. They're more live and let live and tolerant of others.

The Alt-Right doesn't want to just fight back, they want to win, and drink victory liquor from a goblet made from your skull.

Blogger Bard November 16, 2016 2:16 PM  

Or be an idiot, fuck off, and get banned. Much simpler.

Blogger Ingot9455 November 16, 2016 2:17 PM  

Ah, so now Nick gradually realizes that Man does have a self-correction mechanism to his rationalizations. That's what all the mindset books are purporting to teach.

Nick asked earlier, what makes a man change? I'd say survival. Not all are capable of it - many people have died because they refused to adapt. The Democrat party is in the process of dying because it refuses to adapt. Twitter is dying because it refuses to adapt. And so on.

Billions of people have bought billions of books purporting to teach us how to better adapt our rationalizations for some desired survival purpose.

Blogger VD November 16, 2016 2:18 PM  

Sorry, Vox. I was responding while you posted.

NP. Happens.

I've witnessed so many people flee or struggle with math in my time, that I believe logic may be more of rarity than many imagine.

It is. Remember, Aristotle points out that "some people" CANNOT learn from information. Even more people can, but for various reasons, don't.

Blogger Matthew November 16, 2016 2:18 PM  

Obvious liar is obvious. (and possibly "Obvious").

Blogger Bard November 16, 2016 2:23 PM  

Richard Spencer just kicked off Twatter. Gab is going to be yuuuge. Wait until Trump switches to it exclusively.

Blogger ZhukovG November 16, 2016 2:31 PM  

Libertarian thought was always just as utopian as Marxist-Leninist thought. There will never be a 'Libertarian Man' any more than there could be a 'Soviet Man'. Human nature rebels against it.

That said; I still consider myself a Nationalist Libertarian. Which for me means 'Go with Liberty, until Liberty may adversely effect the Nation, then go with the Nation'.

Blogger S1AL November 16, 2016 2:35 PM  

"U.S.A., all my life. But that's not what I meant. I was asking what branch of the Alt-right I would be considered a part of (if any)."

Stop asking OTHER PEOPLE to put you in a box. Build your own damn box. There are commenters here who range from center-left Obama voters (you know who you are) to hard libertarian to tradcon to (sigh) actual Nazis. Figure out what you believe in and settle for that.

Blogger Gab LP9 ++Solidified in Gold! Rin Integra November 16, 2016 2:39 PM  

Awesome

93 Ivanka is at Gab, I am trying to get the entire twitter 'normals' (because the stupid pple/MPAI ruined things) to Gab asap.

I am working towards making Gab even grater and cooler than Tw-Tar, Twiiter is in 9% decline per MSM

Blogger Wild Man November 16, 2016 2:41 PM  

VD, OK ..... I suppose your definition of the alt-right, and the distinction you make of the alt-right vis-a-vis libertarianism, ultimately comes down to group identity, of which I assume, you believe there are at least some innate racial differences, that give rise to cultural differences (when controlled for racial homogeneity of group), and said cultural differences perhaps occurring by very subtle distributive-trait-dependent social feedback loops that recursively lead to this cultural assortment, ... and that personal identity with a particular variety of the manifold cultural assortments, is the core feature (i.e. - the group identity feature) that defines the differences between alt-right social descriptions and libertarian social descriptions. Do you agree, or am I still missing something with respect to the underpinnings of your alt-right definition?

If you agree ..... well ... that would then lead to some other subtle questions.

Blogger allyn71 November 16, 2016 2:47 PM  

Rational=Dialectic
Rationalizing=Rhetoric

It has been conclusively proven that some people are incapable of understanding dialectic ergo they can never be totally rationale.

Man is fallen, there is nothing new under the sun. The inability of libertarians to understand this is why they fail in the real world.

Blogger PoseidonAwoke November 16, 2016 2:49 PM  

>"The Alt-Right observes, to the contrary, that Man is an irrational, rationalizing creature."

I call this the Hopeful Right vs the Resigned Right. There are those who have a very rosy, hopeful outlook on human nature (libertarians) which leads to their Utopianism. Then there are those who are resigned (hopeless) as to the true capabilities of the average man, which leads to their Pragmatism.

Blogger Deplorable Gaiseric November 16, 2016 2:52 PM  

DGM wrote:So how would I be categorized?
Who cares? What are you looking for; a team jersey to wear, or a personal quest to understand the world? If it's the latter, why do you worry about what label you should have pinned to your lapel?

Blogger James November 16, 2016 2:52 PM  

Did I ever mention mein idea for a new political partei? The NLAWP.

THE NATIONAL LIBERTARIAN AMERICAN WORKERS' PARTEI.

Real politics done properly always involves a coalition.

In history, the NASDAP was designed to be seen as either the NATIONAL socialist GERMAN workers Partei, or, if you preferred, The national SOCIALIST german WORKERS Partei. The idea was to appeal to a broad base that had very different priorities but under the leadership of a brilliant Fuhrer, or perhaps the brilliant leadership of a Supreme Dark OverLord, it would function to serve the varied needs of der Volk, er, I mean, the People.

Blogger PoseidonAwoke November 16, 2016 3:00 PM  

allyn71 wrote:
Man is fallen, there is nothing new under the sun. The inability of libertarians to understand this is why they fail in the real world.


Yes, this is religious framing: 'fallen', 'original sin'. I see 'original sin' is the savage/animal origins of man. To express this more scientifically, I would say that during the process of Man's domestication of Man, he has selected for certain traits which make men better cooperators in a social order. We call these traits 'virtues'. As we continue along our path of self-selection, we still retain our savage nature a greater or lesser degree (fallen/original sin). It is the realization that our savage nature has note been eradicated, merely tamed, (and that the frequency of genes which code for domestication varies by ethnic group) which distinguishes a hopeful libertarian from a resigned pragmatist.

Blogger Joshua_D November 16, 2016 3:01 PM  

PoseidonAwoke wrote:>"The Alt-Right observes, to the contrary, that Man is an irrational, rationalizing creature."

I call this the Hopeful Right vs the Resigned Right. There are those who have a very rosy, hopeful outlook on human nature (libertarians) which leads to their Utopianism. Then there are those who are resigned (hopeless) as to the true capabilities of the average man, which leads to their Pragmatism.


"Resigned" is a bit more pessimistic. I prefer, "Realistic".

The Realistic Right.

Blogger Cataline Sergius November 16, 2016 3:05 PM  

But libertarianism has turned out to be nearly as economically ignorant as Marxism, and nearly as dangerous as Leninism, Nazism, or Maoism. Mass immigration, of the sort considerably more limited than that envisioned by the purist libertarians who correctly subscribe to open borders, has proven to be at least potentially as disastrous as any of those three historically infamous ideologies.

This all day.

I used to be a devote Libertarian myself. Until cold hard reality decided it was time to knock on my door.

Still I chugged along for decades not really questioning my beliefs. And still saying I was one of the faithful. I suppose I was over invested in a bad idea.

So what happened Cataline you ask?

I woke up.

It took me long enough.

The thing is I believe in results. We've had free trade and open borders (effectively) since the mid 1990s and for twenty years we've been pouring wealth out this country like piss out of horse. Free trade is clearly and obviously a failure. If you still believe in it then you aren't facing cold hard reality. You are living in Paul Ryan's bubble and probably collecting a US government paycheck. Our standard of living has gone down since it was adopted, (big exception; if you already rich. Free trade works great for you).

Open Borders only work if you are completely separated from the the real world. Paul Ryan will continue to believe in them because his world view crashes and burns if he doesn't. He and people like him immediately begin shaking their head, no, no, no, no, no, the moment you try and point out to them that even if Mexicans wanted to assimilate they can't due to the vast ocean of bodies that has washed up on our shores. I mean I've literally seen the man start shaking his head in rejection if even the concept is raised.

Blogger Cataline Sergius November 16, 2016 3:07 PM  

The other reason I left Libertarianism was Atheism...

The only thing I was never on board with was the militant atheism.

At the time it didn't bother me because of two things. One; I was certain in my heart that there was a God who lived and loved me. And two; I didn't think about it all that much. I figured that the atheism was just one more thing that I could take or leave in the all you can eat buffet of Libertarian philosophy.

I was completely wrong. Atheism is the bedrock of Libertarianism.

The iron clad belief that there is only the self and that there is no one to stand in judgement over your life but the self that you created. This is the foundation for that entire school of thought. Atheism is not an optional extra if you are a true capital "L" Libertarian, it's required.

Thus we hit the fundamental flaw; if there is only the self...then why have children?

Anonymous Post Alley Crackpot November 16, 2016 3:09 PM  

"... libertarianism insists on the existence of Rational Man ..."

Even that much may be suspect.

I have a friend who likes quoting Alfred Jay Nock at me while insisting it's Murray Rothbard, who imagines some sort of idealised Libertarian existence whilst staying put in his comfortable suburban existence, one made possible by a relatively homogenous culture around him and a consistently reliable threat of intervening violence by external forces.

I do try not to correct him when he's quoting Alfred Jay Nock -- he seems to believe in the Rational Man, and so he'll eventually recognise his errors and correct them quietly and in private.

But he also seems to imagine that this would-be pretender to the throne of political philosophy would preserve various rights and freedoms with the use of an externally motivated force of armed interventionists that would also mysteriously not do anything to secure total power for themselves.

So if "Libertarian" means that you employ other people to beat down the people who violate the social contracts, I can't see how it's any different from the present system except in terms of utopian visions.

Vernor Vinge's "Conquest By Default" is at least a bit more believable as a story, with its "umpires" and "concept of chaos", and at least he had the sense to realise that "minarchy" wasn't tenable with an externally motivated and empowered armed force other than "the people themselves" employed in a role where they protected their own interests ...

I see Libertarianism in its overly rationalised form as a powerful social narrative narcotic for people who may have watched or read too many "justice comics" when they were children, who therefore may have had to work this sort of thing out of their systems one way or another.

"Imagine if we could simply convince Doctor Doom to be on our side ..." :-)

Sorry, but speaking as a Doctor Doom-like evil genius, I have carefully considered this proposal and declined it on numerous occasions, so if you will excuse me, I will get back to devising further strategies for your eventual demise. :-)

Blogger Baloo November 16, 2016 3:10 PM  

While I, and others, settled on "Libertarian Nationalist."
http://ex-army.blogspot.com
Seems like pretty much the same thing, and is somewhat less evocative of the NSDAP. And I imagine Murray Rothbard would have supported Trump. He supported Buchanan, after all.

Blogger Tex Longhorn November 16, 2016 3:13 PM  

Is it accurate to say that the Alt-Right doesn't believe in American Exceptionalism but rather exceptional individuals in American History (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Edison, Ford, etc.)?

Blogger Dave Narby November 16, 2016 3:18 PM  

Yo VD!

Quit holding that lefty Tucker up as a Libertarian. He's a "Left Libertarian" which under analysis, isn't Libertarian at all.

You want a better example of a Libertarian, look at Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, Andrew Napalitano etc.

Blogger Dave November 16, 2016 3:20 PM  

Is Tucker still affiliated with the Laissez-Faire Club?

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents November 16, 2016 3:20 PM  

Libertarianism has always had two major weak points: borders and competence. Libertopia would be a great place for people in their 20's and 30's who don't have any children, a lot like any revitalized downtown hipster zone in many ways.

LIbertopia doesn't really know what to do with people under the age of accountability. It also hasn't really got a clue what to do with Grandpa when he gets a little dementia.

But it's the border that matters. Libertopians all have locks on the doors of their houses or apartments, but they don't want a lock on the larger community perimeter.

LIbertopia is only possible in a high trust society. That rules out tribal people from libertopia, and in fact would limit it to those of NW Euro descent. Hey, we can test this: count the number of libertarians who aren't descended all or partly from white Europeans west of the Hajnal line.

Surprise! There aren't any! It's purely a white, western, idea. Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Africans - they don't care for libertopianism.

Blogger Tex Longhorn November 16, 2016 3:21 PM  

In contrast, the alt-right’s opposition to democracy traces to its loathing of the masses generally and its overarching suspicion of anything that smacks of equality. In other words, they tend to hate democracy for all the wrong reasons. This similarity is historically contingent and largely superficial given the vast differences that separate the two worldviews. Does society contain within itself the capacity for self management or not? That is the question.


In other words a great Republic instead of a straight democracy. I seem to recall, I could be mistaken, that Vox in the past mentioned a disdain for the electoral college, my view is the classic democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what's for dinner, I may be mistakenly conflating Republic and electoral college, but the electoral college did give Trump the win.

Anonymous DGM November 16, 2016 3:23 PM  

@100

> "Who cares? What are you looking for; a team jersey to wear, or a personal quest to understand the world? If it's the latter, why do you worry about what label you should have pinned to your lapel?"

The latter, but that's not the point. I'm not looking for a group to belong to. I'm looking to understand the emerging political landscape (especially the Alt-Right) better. And since Vox's post was about making such distinctions I thought such questions would be fair.

If there's no existing label for what I described, fine. Just say so and I'll consider my question answered. I assure you I'm not going to cry myself to sleep over it.

Blogger Tex Longhorn November 16, 2016 3:24 PM  

@110 We all (will/must) believe in borders at some point, it just depends on your threshold for pain. I imagine even the most tolerant Roman changed his mind after his wife, daughter or mother was raped by a Barbarian.

Blogger Colton Hatch November 16, 2016 3:25 PM  

What do you think about the most recent Mises Circle event? There was tons of talk about the need to acknowledge that libertarianism needs the right, and that the left is why they are such degenerates now. Jeff Deist had a great speech on the need to bring back the values of family and culture. I think that as the Alt-Right continues to win and lead the way, the LP will fracture off and many will join our ranks. Leaving only the degenerates left. Deus Vult

Blogger James Dixon November 16, 2016 3:25 PM  

> Is it accurate to say that the Alt-Right doesn't believe in American Exceptionalism

From my perspective, not an innate exceptionalism, no. It was an exceptional experiment with an exceptional group of people. But as the people inevitably the changed, the experiment inevitably failed. I'm doubtful Trump can turn things round enough to resurrect it.

Blogger Tex Longhorn November 16, 2016 3:28 PM  

@112 I'm not full in for the Alt-Right. I just find some of their views to be more realistic. Maybe just say you swallowed the Red Pill and leave it at that DGM.

Blogger Elizabeth November 16, 2016 3:29 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Jack Ward November 16, 2016 3:32 PM  

All Hail Lord Trump!! Hell yes...
It occurred to me that the Trump theme song could be I need a Hero by Bonnie Tyler.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBwS66EBUcY

Blogger Tex Longhorn November 16, 2016 3:32 PM  

@114 I've heard Libertarians remind people that they are not libertines, but I'm hard pressed to see such a tolerance for the most extremes of immorality is that much difference.

Blogger Elizabeth November 16, 2016 3:32 PM  

A speaker at a political meeting I once attended pointed out that human beings don't think, they feel, and then used reason to justify their feelings. I asked to individuals with experience running political campaigns if he was right and they both said that that statement was true of most people. I think that Jonathan Haidt wrote much the same thing in The Righteous Mind, which I didn't read but read about.

The belief that human beings are naturally reasonable is an ancient belief: both Confuciucism (as taught by Confucius) and Stoicism were based on this view.

Another weakness of libertarianism is that is simply doesn't work for low-IQ individuals who don't grasp the connection between cause and effect. Steven Sailer once pointed out that blacks do better in structured environments, such as authoritarian churches, the military and sports teams. Blacks tend to be less intelligent, impulsive and aggressive than whites and need someone tell them what to do and not do. Whites are more likely to realize that certain actions will have certain negative effects.

Anonymous Sagramore November 16, 2016 3:33 PM  

@8 confederation of county-level entities

Like Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Virginia?

Blogger James Dixon November 16, 2016 3:33 PM  

To expound further on that subject, simply put, it was neither the people nor the institutions that made America great, but rather a combination of a particular people with a particular culture and the freedoms our founders gave us. It turns out those freedoms are simply not compatible with most other cultures (arguably, any other cultures, but who knows for certain).

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 16, 2016 3:35 PM  

The key difference between the Alt-Right and libertarianism is that libertarianism insists on the existence of Rational Man. The Alt-Right observes, to the contrary, that Man is an irrational, rationalizing creature. Where you fall on that question alone will logically dictate whether you ultimately side with the libertarians or the Alt-Right, if your ideals incline towards the libertarian.

Drop that mic it's getting too hot!

Blogger Baloo November 16, 2016 3:35 PM  

DGM, you're a Libertarian Nationalist, i. e., you believe that libertarianism is only possible within the borders of a country that takes care to admit only those immigrants that are compatible with the local culture, which is, among other things, libertarian in nature. http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2011/09/nationalism-and-libertarianism.html

Blogger Dave Narby November 16, 2016 3:36 PM  

Bla bla bla borders all the serious Libertarians talk about ENDING THE WELFARE STATE FIRST, opening borders second.

Which means practically, open borders in nobody's lifetime ever.

Tucker ain't a serious Libertarian. He's a LEFT Libertarian. Cantwell took him apart a couple years ago, I stopped paying attention to Tucker about that time https://christophercantwell.com/2014/03/12/jeffrey-tuckers-case-libertarianism/

I think some Libertarian publications keep him around in the futile hope he will convert some lefties to their cause, IMO Cantwell has the right idea: Fuck 'em.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 16, 2016 3:37 PM  

I'm amazed you were able to work through all the confounds this quickly and get right to the logical heart. That was a bit of genius right there.

Anonymous DGM November 16, 2016 3:42 PM  

@116

> "I'm not full in for the Alt-Right. I just find some of their views to be more realistic."

Same here. Just two days ago the Steve Keen article Vox linked to changed my mind about Comparative Advantage.



>> "Maybe just say you swallowed the Red Pill and leave it at that DGM."

Oh, definitely. Bitter as hell, but good for what ails ya.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 16, 2016 3:44 PM  

If you could pull the same trick with the alt-lite, alt-west, and alt-white, I'd appreciate it a great deal. Emotions are downstream from worldview, and shared worldview is culture. The alt-right's use of humor is a cultural weapon which either weakens aspects of some worldview (e.g. weakening: they called us hitler lol haha not a big deal) or strengthens them (e.g. strengthening: look at these idiots riot, they obviously agree that we can't share a country).

Blogger Tex Longhorn November 16, 2016 3:45 PM  

it turns out those freedoms are simply not compatible with most other cultures (arguably, any other cultures, but who knows for certain).

I remember seeing a Stefan Moylneux video with some pretty scary graphs that proved this point, James. I used to think Immigrants from Eastern Block/Slavac nations were desirable, now I'm pretty sure they're not. Russia for example I heard is pretty corrupt (it's not unusual to pay the police to get let off the hook, not to mention the organized crime and human trafficking). I don't think we want folks bringing that kind of baggage into the U.S. Look what the Italians brought into the country in the early 20th Century, sure they gave us some great food but they also gave us the mob.

Anonymous paradox November 16, 2016 3:47 PM  

Interesting to see Tucker is able to function and not crying into his bowtie. Because it was Jeffrey Tucker who said Trump was literally a fascist. And Trump 2016 written in chalk is literally a hate crime.

Blogger Tex Longhorn November 16, 2016 3:53 PM  

@125 I noticed that libertarians who used to reside on the left have a disdain for Trump. Which makes me think that they were merely disenfranchised by the Democratic Party at some point and still harbor most of their lefty beliefs deep down.

Blogger Deplorable Gaiseric November 16, 2016 3:53 PM  

DGM wrote:If there's no existing label for what I described, fine. Just say so and I'll consider my question answered. I assure you I'm not going to cry myself to sleep over it.
I don't even know what label to apply to myself. If you read Vox's 16 Points, you'll know what he thinks the Alt-Right is, but as we all saw shortly after he published it and we had a blog invasion from the Daily Stormer to tell us that all our alt-right are belong to them, it was clear that not everyone who self-identifies with that label accepts his definition.

With the 16 points, I agree with all of them, but I don't necessarily care about all of them equally. I think the Nine Theses explanation for the Alt Right is even better in some ways; it's certainly easier to digest and share.

And yet, I'm still not sure that I call myself an alt-righter, or merely sympathetic to them. I'm not sure if I'd call myself a classical liberal, or a nationalist libertarian, or an Old Right paleoconservative, either one of the three, being an example of one that's been backed into a corner by our prevailing culture and developed meaner teeth over time.

Honesty, what's really the significant difference between any of those, anyway? They don't disagree on much of anything, they just have a slightly different focus of emphasis.

Blogger Deplorable Gaiseric November 16, 2016 3:56 PM  

DGM wrote:"Maybe just say you swallowed the Red Pill and leave it at that DGM."

Oh, definitely. Bitter as hell, but good for what ails ya.

Someone here the other day said that the red pill is actually a suppository. I really, big, fat, rough-edged, course-textured suppository, that you have to take slowly over a long time.

Sigh. It's true. But it still beats wallowing in dishonesty and error.

Blogger Baloo November 16, 2016 3:57 PM  

ZhukovG, you've been quibcagged:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2016/11/a-quick-quibcag-on-nationalism.html

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents November 16, 2016 4:03 PM  

@125
Bla bla bla borders all the serious Libertarians talk about ENDING THE WELFARE STATE FIRST, opening borders second.

Please name some of these serious Libertarians. They sure don't write for Reason and they weren't part of Gary Johnson's campaign.

Blogger Tex Longhorn November 16, 2016 4:07 PM  

@133 The Matrix had it as if all things would be suddenly revealed. Reality would have Neo arguing all along the way, finally accepting the reality, feeling demoralized, than noticing how damaging the blue pill really is and fighting to cram the red pill down everyone's gullet.

Blogger Brian Thomas November 16, 2016 4:11 PM  

Libertarians, especially the lefty Tucker types, have nothing but disdain for any sort of cultural, linguistic, or other identity. He says as much in his piece, and notes that “progress” consists of discarding all of this detritus.

But I always wonder: once they’ve stripped away one’s culture, language, history, and other marks of identity...what’s left?

A cog? A cipher? Some unit whose be-all-end-all is utilitarian calculation of economic benefit? Are all human interactions just reduced to economic/contractual exchange?

Seems to lead to equalitarianism and consummate meaninglessness.

One other thing I take issue with: many libertarians, and again Tucker is a prime example of this, claim to have discerned that there are these things called "individual rights" which are held to be universal for all time, place, and people.

Yet, why, then, did no such concept exist, even in the West, until sometime between the 12th century Canonists such as Gratian, and the 14th century dispute between Ockham and the Franciscans against the Papacy? And, indeed, ONLY in the West thereafter?

Before this time, nobody anywhere would have grokked such a concept, it seems. And, even more damning, most languages of the world cannot even support such a concept: there is no linguistic equivalent in them. Isn’t this precisely why such notions are precisely confined to Western Europe?

Hmm...maybe people (and certainly the vast, vast, majority) really are products of their language and culture, and that "impersonal collectives of tribe, race, community" which Tucker wants to dismiss, if not demolish, really ARE driving forces of history, which he sees as a major point of difference between libertarians and the Alt Right.

Blogger S1AL November 16, 2016 4:13 PM  

"Is it accurate to say that the Alt-Right doesn't believe in American Exceptionalism but rather exceptional individuals in American History (Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Edison, Ford, etc.)?"

More accurately, the United States is historically exceptional as both nation and country. But it is not intrinsically exceptional.

Blogger Dave Narby November 16, 2016 4:20 PM  

@Brian Thomas

"Libertarians, especially the lefty Tucker types, have nothing but disdain for any sort of cultural, linguistic, or other identity."

Boy, all those Christian Libertarians (e.g. Lew Rockwell, Gary North, et. al.) will be surprised to find that out...

Libertarianism is a big tent. The NAP is the core. It doesn't claim to answer any and all societal problems. We are left to figure that out as we please.

And yes, you can discriminate in hiring, firing, renting, associating, etc. Private property is private. All fine under the NAP and Libertarianism.

Tucker is a liberal masquerading as a libertarian.

Blogger VD November 16, 2016 4:20 PM  

I was asking what branch of the Alt-right I would be considered a part of (if any).

We don't care. I have zero interest in telling everyone what I think they are. I'm not the Pope of the Alt-Right.

It's not that freaking hard. Western people don't want to live in Somalia or Beijing. The more you make that possible, or necessary, in any way shape or form, the more they don't want you around either.

Blogger Dave Narby November 16, 2016 4:33 PM  

@VD

"Western people don't want to live in Somalia or Beijing. The more you make that possible, or necessary, in any way shape or form, the more they don't want you around either."

^This

Or, as I like to put it to people: "Everybody loves diversity... OVER THERE."

Try that line out on people. You'll typically get an honest laugh (because the punchline is so quick), and then a guilty look (OMG did I just laugh at that?!).

I find it's a great opening line to discuss how we'll all be a lot better off if we quit bossing each other around trying to force diversity on people who are violently opposed to it.

Blogger Mike Romkey November 16, 2016 4:40 PM  

"Dark and dangerous"? I like that. It makes me feel more exciting. ...

I think the thing a lot of people (not here) have trouble grasping is that, for a combination of reasons, it has become relatively easy for people anywhere in the world to look about them, see where the prosperity is, pack a bag, and relocate there without much trouble at the border(s).

Complications then ensue.

In ancient times, this sort of vibrancy often involved armed hoards of warriors on ponies, slaughter and rapine. The modern version obviates the need for arms, and the slaughter and rapine have to date been limited enough to be contained by the compliant organs of state-sanctioned propaganda.

Anonymous dystonia November 16, 2016 4:43 PM  

Over the years, the only people I've talked politics with who I've found have put some thought into their position (rather than osmosing it through the media), and thus I have had any real respect for, have been nationalists of one flavour or another -- including one who felt that it was unfair that Hitler had poisoned the well for Nationalist Socialism as a thing.

It's only in recent years that I've found the words that describe my political leanings; but even in the very first internet political quizzes I took back in the late 90s, I didn't rate full libertarian because I said "No" to the free movement thing. Now, even though I was an early member of the Libertarian Party over here (because I didn't fit with any of the others, and it was an opportunity to raise an Agincourt salute to the all the Guardianistas around me), I know that I was really a Nativist Minarchist all along.

Those who have read AJP Taylor's summary of England on the eve of the First World War know that such a thing was possible then -- but back in those days, the free movement that was allowed was predicated on foreigners not being able to move in and live off the parish, indeed rarely being in a position to arrive on these shores in the first place, and they only being present in noticeable numbers in places like the ghettoes of the East End, as they had been in successive waves since before the Hugenots arrived there.

Alas, to get back there, we would need, amongst other things, to first reclaim England for the English (Identify as British? -- Get out, you Celt or worse than Celt!). Which is why I'm hoping that we do get a second Joxit referendum, and that one yields a "Leave" result too.

Blogger sconzey November 16, 2016 4:47 PM  

Moldbug makes the analogy that Libertarianism is like Newtonian Physics-- completely correct, but only valid within a specific envelope.

Blogger Joey November 16, 2016 4:47 PM  

Please note that Jeffrey Tucker is a leftist libertarian. While he used to be on friendly terms with the likes of Molyneux he quickly turned his back on him whenever Molyneux specifically came out in defense of borders and all the information he has presented on race and IQ.

The final nail in the coffin for me was when Tucker accused me of being part of Stormfront for merely disagreeing with him about borders and Muslims. (I noticed he's done that to others as well).

Anyway, despite the poor reputation that the leftists have brought us I think we right-libertarians have a lot to offer the Alt-Right/dissident-right.

Anonymous rtp November 16, 2016 4:49 PM  

But let's say you were given a hypothetical choice between 1) a country with high levels of immigration but strong capitalist policies; and 2) a country with zero immigration but strong socialist policies.

And yes I realise that immigrants predominantly vote left - hence the "hypothetical" aspect - but I would vastly prefer 1).

I would of course prefer strong capitalist and minimal immigration but capitalism and high immigration >>>>> socialism and low immigration.

So does that make me "alt-right" or "libertarian"?

Anonymous An Extremely Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than A Basket Of Twenty Deplorable Cents November 16, 2016 4:57 PM  

But let's say you were given a hypothetical choice between 1) a country with high levels of immigration but strong capitalist policies; and 2) a country with zero immigration but strong socialist policies.


I'd prefer the unicorn, or at least a pony.

Blogger S1AL November 16, 2016 5:01 PM  

"So does that make me "alt-right" or "libertarian"?"

With that level of not-gonna-happen, I'm gonna go with Socialist Libertarian Worker's Party of Gog and Magog.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 16, 2016 5:02 PM  

Aeoli Pera wrote:If you could pull the same trick with the alt-lite, alt-west, and alt-white, I'd appreciate it a great deal.

I'm gonna take my first shot at this question.

What unites the Alt-Right is winning. So the determining question between alt-right and anything else on the right is "Are you winning?" (I.e. Do you acknowledge the existential struggle, the purposeful and remorseless enemy, the necessity of winning, and do you have the balls to dig in and win?)

What separates the Alt-White from the Alt-West is the CQ. "Is Christianity good for white nations?" Notice this has nothing to do with its truthfulness, as befits our godless age. Molyneux is therefore Alt-West, despite his atheism.

The Alt-Lite is just a preliminary feeder into these two camps, so it's distinguished from them by deferment on the CQ.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 16, 2016 5:03 PM  

An Extremely Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than A Basket Of Twenty Deplorable Cents wrote:I'd prefer the unicorn, or at least a pony.

Father says our yard is too small.

Blogger rcocean November 16, 2016 5:04 PM  

I've never be a libertarian, because I've always seen it as either a Utopian fantasy or a dangerous idea that helps the enemies of society and country. What better way for one group to conquer another than to spread the idea - to the "enemy" group - that its "every man for himself".

Blogger JaimeInTexas November 16, 2016 5:07 PM  

Tucker is a thick libertarian. He has to be be since he is a most weird creature, a left-libertarian. Tucker should watch Mozart Was A Communist and remember.

There is a divide between the libertarians and the dividing line is the non-aggression principle. The thick want to add all kinds of stuff to make society more ... more ... feminist, inclusive, kinder. You know, like what leftists want and could bring about if the right people were in charge. What could possibly go wrong?

I read Wenzel but I do not agree with him.

I also read Bionic Mosquito and agree with him a whole lot. Bionic Mosquito does a very good job at pointing out reality to the likes of Tucker and Wenzel. Mosquito often writes articles that gives me something to chew on for a days.

Blogger rcocean November 16, 2016 5:08 PM  

It should have been obvious from day 1 that "libertarianism" and "Randism" was a philosophy made for a 90% White America, that felt it compete internationally and win in a Global economy.

Blogger allyn71 November 16, 2016 5:09 PM  

"capitalism and high immigration >>>>> socialism and low immigration.

So does that make me "alt-right" or "libertarian"?


Neither, it makes you a stupid sell out cuck.

Blogger Cail Corishev November 16, 2016 5:12 PM  

Which makes me think that they were merely disenfranchised by the Democratic Party at some point and still harbor most of their lefty beliefs deep down.

Sounds like the leftists who became "conservatives" because they rejected and wanted to defeat Soviet communism, but they never really gave up their leftist ideals, hence neo-conservatism.

There may be a pattern here.

Blogger RobertT November 16, 2016 5:13 PM  

If you get three nerds together, they'll start labeling and classifying everything. Which is what Buckley attempted to do with the conservative movement. It turned out that most people defined "conservative movement" for themselves and everyone had a different idea. But no one realized the diversity of opinions until Trump ran as a Republican.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 16, 2016 5:21 PM  

So what follows from the CQ are competing worldviews which answer the four existential questions differently.

"Question"
[Alt-White answer]
+Alt-West answer+

"What will happen when I die?"
[You will live on through your national (spirit) genepool.]
+Your soul will live on, having been shaped by your thoughts and actions as an embodied soul.+

"What’s the meaning of life?"
[Genetic struggle for dominance.]
+Salvation through self-sacrifice.+

"How should I conduct myself?"
[Strive.]
+Worship.+

"Am I loved?"
[Your blood relatives feel a genetic altruism toward you.]
+Yes.+

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 16, 2016 5:31 PM  

Distilling these into one-word systems, we have the following answers to the four existential questions of culture.

[Alt-White]
Eternity -> [Utopianism]
Morality -> [Pragmatism]
Accountability -> [Totalitarianism]
Charity -> [Socialism]

+Alt-West+
Eternity -> +Individualism+
Morality -> +Cultural Christianity+
Accountability -> Either +Catholicism+ or +Tribalism+
Charity -> +Altruism+

These terms might be a little loose at this point.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash November 16, 2016 5:51 PM  

It's good to know that Tucker is not a true Scotsman....I mean Libertarian. Because he agrees with Rothbard on a point of doctrine? Am I getting this right? Cause it doesn't make sense.

I flirted with Libertarianism in my idiot youth. Then one day, my little brother married a mover and shaker in local Libertarian circles. Then I saw up close and personal what a shitbag a person can be while still strictly following Libertarian philosophy.


Brian Thomas wrote:Hmm...maybe people (and certainly the vast, vast, majority) really are products of their language and culture, and that "impersonal collectives of tribe, race, community" which Tucker wants to dismiss, if not demolish, really ARE driving forces of history, which he sees as a major point of difference between libertarians and the Alt Right.

Most libertarians, like most SJWs, are stuck on rejecting their parents, and more importantly, their parents' morality.

Blogger John Wright November 16, 2016 6:12 PM  

"It's not that I am opposed to libertarian ideals. Quite to the contrary, I cherish them as deeply as I ever did. It is merely that events, and a deeper understanding of history, have caused me to conclude that libertarian ideals are as ultimately utopian and irrelevant as communist ideals, progressive ideals, and conservative ideals."

Ironically, it is for exactly these reasons that I also left behind my beloved libertarianism, and became a member of the political philosophy formerly known as conservative.

The event for me was the 9/11 attack, whereupon I realized that the atomism of libertarianism (which treat's one's nation as a hotel, not as a home) does not reflect the organic reality of duty owed to the land of one's birth and to the family, clan, and culture. A libertarian would all these duties be voluntary and mutual, and the realities of warfare do not allow for that. A sculling team is not the place for individualism: either all crewmen pull the oars together, or the boats goes nowhere.

The second thing was a close reading of history.

For me, it was the description of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire by Belloc.

It overturned my previous belief, which I got from Edward Gibbon (who blamed religion for the weakening of the empire, and preached that barbarian invaders moving in from outside replaced the Roman population.)

Belloc pointed out that the so called barbarians were Romans born and bred, even if from originally Gothic stock, and were quarreling, as Roman generals always quarreled, over dignities, honors, and pay. The myth that some alleged Teutonic race (consisting of English, Germans, and for some reason, Indians) had some innate political disposition toward freedom which the Southern parts of Europe lacked was exploded.

It is the same myth that dogs Catholicism to this day: a mere reverse of cause and effect. The Northern Europeans routinely congratulate themselves on being the enlightened innovators of political freedom, when, in fact, the absolute monarchs of the Reformation crushed the freedoms which had been routinely enjoyed by Medieval burghers. The serf of the Dark Ages had more freedom than the slaves brought out of Africa during the Enlightenment.

This is but one example of many, but I hope the one example makes it clear: libertarianism is a peacetime philosophy meant for bachelors.

Blogger John Wright November 16, 2016 6:22 PM  

@19
"Man does not naturally seek truth, Nick. We seek to tell ourselves a story that works for us."

You yourself, right now, with this sentence, are telling yourself a story rather than the truth.

Man is a rational animal. His reason tells him that he sins, falls short of his ideals, and deserves to burn in hell. His reason quite reasonably tells him he cannot survive unless he hides this truth from himself. And so, for quite rational reasons, he embraces untruth and irrationality. But talking unreason also makes him feel guilty, and so he needs a second layer of unreasonable self deception to hide the first.

If he abandons pride, as a philosopher does for the sake of truth, or abandons self-will, as a mystic does for the sake of heaven, he can retain his rationality and escape this trap.

My point is that it is not a matter of the inability to reason. It is, by and large, among grown and neurotypical men, an unwillingness to reason.

It may seem a fine point, but it has tremendous implications: it is the difference between all men being damnable and all men being damned.

Blogger James Dixon November 16, 2016 6:32 PM  

> I would of course prefer strong capitalist and minimal immigration but capitalism and high immigration >>>>> socialism and low immigration.

What do you have against Scandanavia?

Blogger Benjamin Kraft November 16, 2016 6:35 PM  

Said it before, say it again.

The NAP, which seems to be, as some others have said as well, the central value of Libertarianism, is fundamentally flawed. Anyone who ACTUALLY abides fully by it will die in short order.

"What?" You may ask, "how do you figure?"

NAP = Do not initiate aggression.

Okay, so let's think about this for a second. What constitutes aggression? A physical attack? Obviously not, because then it would be called the NIOVP, or Non-Initiation-Of-Violence-Principle. Clearly it includes verbal, nonverbal, psychological and other, not-directly-violent aggressions as well.

The simplest, most accurate, precise and encompassing definition I come up with is "Any action to the benefit of the self and the detriment of others." Some might try to add a disclaimer, "knowingly", but I must reject it, as aggressive actions and violence can and do happen (impulsively) without people stopping to think what they are doing, and thus "knowing".

So, what actions benefit the self by disadvantaging others? I'll give a trio of examples, although there are many, many more:
#1: Taking a mate. Removing a man or woman (whatever sex you are), for your own use, from the available population of mates that others may choose from. Yes, dating/courting/engagement/marriage are all inherently aggressive actions.
#2: Using any "public service". A facet of this (carried to the extreme) is the "tragedy of the commons", but really any use is an aggression, because it takes from what others have available to use.
#3: Breathing. By breathing you ever-so-slightly lower the oxygen concentration of the air and replace it with carbon dioxide. Any other nearby oxygen-breathers, while they may not necessarily notice it, are definitely being disadvantaged in much the same way as the users of a banking system that "conveniently" rounds the decimals off of transactions into their bank account.

Effectively, if you actually strictly abide by the NAP, you won't live for long, thus living Libertarians are decidedly either not abiding by it, or are constantly acting upon the suspicion that others will initiate aggression even if they themselves do not, in which case they have ALSO abrogated the NAP's letter and intent entirely.

Ultimately I see Libertarianism as a soft and feeble ideology that does not even realize that it requires the fruits of other ideologies to exist.

Anonymous Deplorable S E Delenda November 16, 2016 6:39 PM  

The real furnace of intellectual libertarianism is (a diminishing number) of academic economists; many of whom seem unwilling to acknowledge that because people TEND to be rational in their economic decisions when the outcome horizon is short, the choices are clear-especially when they can readily distinguish between a few quantifiable differences, there's an ability to test the product) doesn't mean that they are always rational.

But they take it to far. They make everything an economic calculation (and I suspect that the heavy mathematization of economics is bringing in more high function autistics prone to these sorts of abstractions), even for example the choice of a wife and we know that's prone to all sorts of non-economic matters. They seem to not understand that we may shop for wives, the way we shop for cars, but wives shop for us, but cars do not.

The result is a belief that humanity is so rational that our only social value should be the freedom of individual contract, that that there are no externalities and we must have mandatory indifference to other's actions, unless there is direct and serious harm.

My barometer for the irrationality of humanity is the continued existence of Starbucks, or as I call it Charbucks. Dunkin Donuts and Tim Horton's coffees are far better and more pleasing; one does not need to laden them with oodles of saturated dairy fat and sugar to make them palatable-and only a fool would pay a premium price to be lectured by the CEO.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable November 16, 2016 6:43 PM  

It may seem a fine point, but it has tremendous implications: it is the difference between all men being damnable and all men being damned.

Thanks, John. Was waiting all day for someone to say something like that.

Anonymous DGM November 16, 2016 6:45 PM  

@140

>> "We don't care. I have zero interest in telling everyone what I think they are."

Fair enough.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 16, 2016 6:48 PM  

"The Alt-Right observes, to the contrary, that Man is an irrational, rationalizing creature."

This.

Note, though, that this is also half of fascism (no, Eco was describing symptoms but couldn't see through to the underlying philosophy; yes, that disappointed me in him greatly); the other half being to turn that truth into a form of absolute and directive government. It has to be both to be fascism; the mere recognition of man as an emotional, irrational, instinctive, and rationalizing creature isn't enough; you have to make the leap from, "and there's nothing to be done about it" to "hmmm...how can we use this to create Heaven on Earth."

Anonymous Chuck November 16, 2016 6:56 PM  

re: "Distilling these into one-word systems, we have the following answers to the four existential questions of culture."

Alas, during the distillation, you lost objectivity, and so ended with a caricature.
(1) Both Christians and proponents of EGI find meaning in the form of continuance (lineage versus immortal soul)
(2) Both metaphysics could be characterized as "utopian" (surely the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come is utopian in some sense)
(3) Proponents of EGI generally grant that individual continuance would be preferable but that the continuance of ones race, culture, and species is the best one can achieve -- or at least is of additional incremental value.

Thus...

Phyletic Continuance (being) -> The production of another like itself, achieved through biocultural propagation

Christian Continuance (being) -> Individual Soul + resurrected body, achieved through following Christian faith

The two are not necessarily incompatible, for one could realize biocultural continuance in line with Christian dogma and also see Christianity -- say of John Paul II (Memory and Identity pg. 65 on)as promoting the latter. The christian question (or conversely the heresy of phyletism) arises when, as at times happens, the two enterprises diverge -- which results in a time for choosing.

Blogger Fenris Wulf November 16, 2016 6:58 PM  

Objectivism teaches that all men possess the faculty of reason, NOT that all men are rational. Rand's concept of rational egoism is akin to the more demanding Greek philosophical sects like Stoicism or Epicureanism. Some of the most prominent Randians have acknowledged that Objectivism will never be a mass movement. At most, it will have a positive effect on the culture, as it has already done.

Libertarians are more naive, and blithely prate about a "libertarian moment." If they mean "15 minutes of fame," they're correct. Libertarian principles remain valid, but they're far more difficult to implement than most people realize. First and foremost, you need a culture and a people who place a supreme value on liberty.

Once you've revised the Constitution, placed absolute limits on government power, abolished the welfare state and the public schools, and restored freedom of contract, freedom of association, private property rights, and armed self-defense, you MIGHT be able to open the borders with no ill effects. Of course, you'll have to close them again if there's a war, or a refugee crisis, or a mass migration from a more populous country.

Blogger Tom Kratman November 16, 2016 7:06 PM  

Rand claimed that her life was commentary on her work: "And I mean it." Her life was a life of mooching (from her relatives), ingratitude (to those relatives), hypocrisy (in taking social security), and infidelity (her whoring around drove her husband to drink himself to death AND ruined the marriage of two of her acolytes. But worse, she was not rational. She never properly accounted for the real world outside of her paradise for sociopaths. She never - what never? No, NEVER! - had an answer for how objectivism was to defend itself from foreign, emotionally driven, threats, threats full of people willing to sacrifice themselves, be they Waffen SS or Soviet Guards.. That - that _alone_! - consigns objectivism to the dung heap of fantasy philosophies.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft November 16, 2016 7:08 PM  

@161. However, all men in and of themselves ARE damned. The first wrong choice you make can do nothing but grow and grow if man is left to his own devices, and the first wrong choice is even more inevitable than all those that follow it.

Looking at men, I see 4 possibilities where reason is concerned.
#1: One who has always reasoned, without error, one who is perfect. Rare to the point that its nonexistence is likely.
#2: One who attempts to reason, and sometimes succeeds. Forever immersed in an endless process of growth in attempt to either become #1, or "close enough" to it for their foreseeable success.
#3: One who could reason, but does not ever attempt to.
#4: One who is not capable of reason.

I would posit that category four could be fruits of genetics, disease, or tampering. In the cases of disease or tampering, category four is usually recognized as mentally ill or severely disabled, and will be (by me) accorded those comforts I may afford it.

If (a big if) category four due to genetics exists, and at a "functional" state, I myself believe that category four is all but indistinguishable from category three, and would also posit that anything that falls completely into category four is not human. We place stress on category threes in order to drive them to reason, and if they are not capable of reason in the first place, (shudder) nothing is lost if the stress eventually exceeds their survivable capacity.

In what manner this stress ought to be applied, and at what speed increased, I leave up to God and the nature he created. If I must, to the best fruits of my reasoning and moral capacity, apply or complete stressing, I will do so.

Blogger papabear November 16, 2016 7:11 PM  

I didn't know Tucker had journeyed leftward. Is he still Catholic?

Blogger Benjamin Kraft November 16, 2016 7:18 PM  

@170. Reading Atlas Shrugged told be at the very least that something was broken in her head with regard to marital fidelity, and given how inhumanly perfect the characters she allows to be seen are, I'm not at all surprised that she doesn't match her purported ideology.

Thanks for providing the confirmation and the rest of the coffin nails.

Anonymous Godfrey November 16, 2016 7:37 PM  

Even though I'm a libertarian sympathizer, I clearly recognize that like other failed ideologies libertarianism denies the fallen nature of man (human nature if you prefer).

Man is generally not a rational creature. The proof is all around us.

Blogger Rough Carrigan November 16, 2016 7:50 PM  

Vox, I think that, at one time, the assumption of rational man was not so crazy in the U.S. Before anyone could come here without a sponsor and with the expectation of sucking at the teat of the welfare state, the U.S. was a vast self selected pool of people who could not stand another fucking minute of bowing and scraping and living in near feudal conditions in europe. Hell, I would argue that immigration of these people to the U.S. not only made the U.S. better but also made europe worse. If each nation in europe had, say, 5% of their population that just couldn't live obediently under their bad authoritarian regimes and a large part of that 5% in each country immigrated to the U.S. then each of those european countries was the poorer for not having the crucial portion of the populace that would push back against authority.

That was the european immigrants. I don't know, maybe the same was true of the asian. I don't think it is of the africans who did not come here for the same reasons.

In a sense, this argues at least a little for the abused concept of american exceptionalism. Through self selection toward opportunity and the chance to leave authority we had a somewhat uniquely composed citizenry.

Blogger JaimeInTexas November 16, 2016 7:55 PM  

Dating a violation of NAP?What nonsense!

Blogger Wanda Sherratt November 16, 2016 7:57 PM  

Penn Jillette has been a Libertarian for years. In July he announced he was supporting Gary Johnson. And yet on Election Day he voted for... Hillary Clinton. https://reason.com/blog/2016/11/06/penn-jillette-votes-for-hillary-clinton#comment

Sure, he "feels bad" about it, but his reason for doing so is the purest rationalization: He swapped his vote for Clinton in a close state (Nevada) for 12 votes for Johnson in a safe state. Overall, the Libertarians "win" because they get a larger number of votes. In real life, though, Hillary wins Nevada. How are the Libertarians "ahead" with a criminal big-state socialist running the government? Thank God it didn't pay off.

Blogger idprism November 16, 2016 8:00 PM  

dc.sunsets wrote:I went through the Republican-to-Libertarian Party-to-individualist anarachism (i.e., pure market order libertarian, all essential services provided on the market, no politics) but eventually realized two truths:

1. Value is subjective.

2. The map is not the territory.

Libertarianism (and all other Utopian -isms) posit that there is one best way to organize Mankind, and once established, a permanent plateau of Nirvana will emerge. It's all about how you structure the rules, don't you know?

I finally realized this is absurd. Market prices are by definition subjective. So, too, is what constitutes "optimal" in every aspect of human endeavor. It's beyond foolish to think one Grand Unifying Set of Rules will permanently satisfy different people each of whom experience differing value-structures minute-by-minute, and whose very nature (driven by brain structures) informs a history of manias, fads, fashions and all other cyclical phenomena.

No Elliottician or Socionomist could be an individualist-anarchist or any kind of serious philosophical libertarian. The latter must reject Man's social behavior.

Also, Tucker is among the odd leftist-libertarians, the ones who think libertarian philosophy can be squared with the Welfare State. As such, his entire paradigm is disqualified as internally incoherent in my view. In his words, even when I was a libertarian I was one of the reviled "brutalist" subgroup.


i think you may have missed the forest for the trees. the whole point of libertarianism, as i understand it anyway, is that each individual is free to use his subjective value to live within a "system" of his choosing. there is no authoritarian organizing "way", and organization amounts to the golden rule. within the libertarian model, the desire for humans to tribalize *should* simply result in non-national communities of varying sizes which will figure out how to trade goods and services with each other when necessary or desired.

i used to call myself a libertarian too, but until/unless all humans are libertarians, there will always be those who wish to ride freely and undermine libertarian societies for their own benefit; this requires a step back from the libertarian model because it does also imply some kind of authoritarian strucutre which will be used to prevent those bad actors from operating freely and liberally [read: with liberty] within a geographical region which is otherwise libertarian (or in this case libertarian leaning, i guess).

i still can't say whether i think libertarianism or libertarian ideals are quite as bad as marxist/communist ideals, because i havent yet seen a libertarian-based white nationalist culture survive long enough as such to live the dream. i have hope for the distant future, but have to concede that in my lifetime it likely wont be possible.

Anonymous What November 16, 2016 8:01 PM  

Borders. Language. Culture.

Blogger John Calabro November 16, 2016 8:15 PM  

Hey Vox,

I still listen to Tom woods and read Lew Rockwell. Jeffrey Tucker is in different circles of Libertarians more closer to Reason magazine than the Mises institute. Have you hear of the infighting in the Libertarian circles back in 2014 when Jeffrey push the "Against Libertarian Brutalism”? It was pretty much a split between the Jeffrey's Liberal crowd who believe that anti-racism should be a part of Libertarian philosophy and the old guard (who Jeff call thick libertarians) people like Tom Woods who stuck to their principals and argue against chances to the core philosophy since it has has nothing to do with race or racism and that they are different topics. The argument for immigration and free trade is different on the Libertarian Brutalist (some of them later join the Alt Right). People such as Tom Woods, Bob Murphy, Lew Rockwell and Hans hermann hoppe, (I would also put Christopher Cantwell) have argue different position on open Borders and Taxes then Jeffrey. (I know that you had debated Bob on the Tom Woods show on Free Trade)

Immigration is closer to Founding Fathers as Tom Woods has try to make the case for or Hans hermann hoppe. I have link Lew Rockwell on this subject https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/11/lew-rockwell/open-borders-assault-private-property/

Yes free Trade is still argue for, but in only that all taxes should be eliminated. In terms of if you had to have taxes the Libertarians and Austrians would say tariffs are better than income taxes since you can avoid them, ie not buy the product or buy domestically , Many libertarians have gone on record saying tariffs is the lesser of two evils. I posted an article by Gary North https://www.lewrockwell.com/2000/10/gary-north/trade-income-taxes-for-tariffs/

Blogger Fenris Wulf November 16, 2016 8:15 PM  

I certainly don't approve of what Ayn Rand did to her husband. She badly wanted a dominant, masterful Alpha male, but never found one in real life.

Some of the things said by hostile biographers should be disregarded. The Social Security issue is just silly. If you're a taxpayer, government benefits should be regarded as restitution.

Philosophy is a valuable tool if you're willing to put in the mental effort to understand it, but it doesn't replace things like family, community, and culture. Ayn Rand was an important thinker, and she influenced the culture in ways that we have yet to fully appreciate. She wasn't a saint or a demigod.

Anonymous Satan's Hamster November 16, 2016 8:17 PM  

When I was a libertarian in the 90s, there really only seemed to be National Libertarians on the right, and International Libertarians on the left (most of whom were just commies looking for a new religion). The right knew you couldn't maintain a libertarian society if you opened the borders to billions of non-libertarians, whereas the left knew 'we're all the same under the skin'.

I dropped out of the libertarian world after 9/11, when so many 'libertarians' were demanding that Bush nuke Afghanistan, and, since then, the International Libertarians seem to have taken over. There's little difference between them and Marxists in terms of seeing the entire world in economic terms, believing that you can just end the welfare state and invite everyone in and we'll finally have utopia. Not one of those people considers that some people might come here not for welfare, but for conquest, or that those billion new immigrants might just vote themselves a brand new welfare state, because that's not part of their economic model.

Blogger SteelPalm November 16, 2016 8:29 PM  

I was myself a libertarian for many years too, until I realized many aspects of the ideology just can't work in our sociopolitical reality.

And that it is especially weak against subversion by the forces of leftism. (A great example of which is Libertarian candidate and hardcore SJW Gary Johnson)

Would be interesting to see how many people either part of or sympathetic to the Alt-Right were once libertarians.

Blogger Fenris Wulf November 16, 2016 8:33 PM  

There is no such thing as a "left-libertarian." These people are leftists who despise libertarian ideas, but view libertarians as useful idiots.

Anonymous paradox November 16, 2016 8:50 PM  

Well, Jeffrey Cucker has one thing correct, him and his ilk are the enemy. Just like the libertarians that allied themselves with communist, against Spanish nationalists, in the Spanish Civil War. Jeffery's contemporary libertarians are allying themselves with the cultural Marxists against American nationalists.

Anonymous Jonathan November 16, 2016 9:05 PM  

Tucker's question about "alt right ideology" demonstrates how badly he understands what is going on. Alt right is simply curious to figure out how the world works, unencumbered by taboos placed on inquiry by the left. Alt right is the antithesis of ideology.

Anonymous Godfrey November 16, 2016 10:11 PM  

I simply describe myself as a Roman Catholic now. It's somewhat a pessimistic belief system as far as the human condition is concerned. But hey, it's not as pessimistic nihilistic atheism.

Anonymous Instasetting November 16, 2016 10:12 PM  

Libertarianism is like multiculturalism, a way for a lazy or inexperienced man to appear knowledgeable.

Anonymous Jonathan November 16, 2016 10:29 PM  

#188

Libertarianism is like multiculturalism, a way for a lazy or inexperienced man to appear knowledgeable.

So, what you're saying is VD was lazy or inexperienced for 30ish years. Nice.

Blogger mickthequick1976 November 16, 2016 10:36 PM  

Was Pat Buchanan alt-right before there was an Alt-Right?

Blogger MeneMene November 16, 2016 11:16 PM  

Allen 71 "Man is fallen, there is nothing new under the sun. The inability of libertarians to understand this is why they fail in the real world."

Exactly.

Blogger Anthony Gillis November 16, 2016 11:42 PM  

I'm in general agreement with some of the other posters with backgrounds as libertarians, and who've moved away from it. As Vox and others have noted, defense of liberty does not require belief in libertarianism, and many libertarian ideals in practice work to destroy it.

The modern, postwar ideology of Libertarianism, like Conservatism, is a synthetic construct built from pieces of older traditions, but not their direct heir. It is not the same movement as the earlier Spanish Libertarians, who were leftist anarchists.

Libertarianism has generally been a big-tent movement, incorporating people with wildly divergent, even incompatible ideas. They were theoretically united by the non-aggression principle from the 70s onward, but even that really didn't incorporate everyone.

Nor did the Murray Rothbard-inspired factions, with leftist roots and a tendency toward leftist rhetoric, get on all that well with those whose roots were in Ayn Rand or the old right.

In the late 90s larger numbers of disaffected leftists turned up, looking for their new cause and bringing their usual bad habits. Post-9/11 those people and the right-leaning parts of the movement began to decisively go different ways.

Many on the right diffused over time into a lot of different places, ranging from the Bush-era 'South Park Conservatives' to libertarian nationalists. Some, like Vox, are now in the Alt-Right.

Meanwhile the left-libertarians simply reverted to flavors of leftism under a different name - as in 'liberaltarians' and self-proclaimed 'bleeding-heart libertarians'. A fair number of them devolved into full-on SJWs. As grotesque a petty SJW thought policeman as Patrick Nielsen Hayden of TOR bills himself as libertarian. They've done what SJWs always do, which is worm their way into existing structures, start policing behavior, then try to take over.

From what I've seen, most of those who started calling themselves cultural libertarians during GamerGate were economic leftists who turned against the SJWs rather than people with backgrounds in libertarianism itself.

In short, the term was always a loose one, and today means even less. What little it might consistently mean today revolves around open borders, anti-nationalism, and devotion to abstracted ideology at the expense of both identity and reality... and so I've come to reject it.

Anonymous Damn Crackers November 17, 2016 12:05 AM  

It's simple. I'm a nationalist libertarian because as a libertarian, I don't like low IQ immigrants f*cking it up for the rest of us.

Blogger Scott Birch November 17, 2016 12:10 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Nobody In Particular November 17, 2016 12:29 AM  

Any person of good faith can agree that Western societies really flourished between (to pick an arbitrary date) 1850 and 1914 and also, to a lesser extent, for some time before and after.
However, it was between 1850 and 1914 that they really achieved world supremacy from all significant points of view.
It seems plausible that modern Western societies should try to recreate the conditions that made their ancestors great at that time.
Looking at the form of government: the most successful countries (UK, France, the US, Germany) were either classically liberal or classically conservative, usually alternating between the two by elections. None of them was communist, fascist, libertarian, anarchist, etc.. Some of the governments were more authoritarian, some were more liberal, but without going too far to either extreme.
Most of them had an aristocracy, some didn't; some were monarchies, some republics --- so these factors probably don't matter. They had somewhat homogenous populations, which look more homogenous in retrospect. They also had immigration, but assimilation was enforced (sometimes brutally) through the state-run education system. The absence of PC also helped. Patriotism was taught in schools. This worked.
Some or most of the male population had the right to vote, but usually it wasn't all of them. Few, if any, women could vote.
There was no such thing as minority rights. Minorities were often persecuted, but usually not in an extreme manner (no pogroms or genocides) --- which "encouraged" assimilation.
Finally, they were open to foreign cultures, but on their own terms (i.e. while being convinced of their own superiority). They didn't care about the sin of "cultural appropriation". They were curious about how other people lived. Colonialism made this easy and useful, but I don't think it was the only reason.
Finally, Christian churches were very strong, but on the defensive. Even those people who weren't Christian deferred to Christian morality. There was a small minority of deviant people (mostly among the rich), but they arose repugnance.
There are other models for success (Soviet Russia? Genghis Khan's Mongols? Deng Xiaoping?), but why not try what we know actually worked really well, for a long time, in the most important Western countries? Also, even if the Soviet Union or the Mongols were very successful in some ways, who would really want to live in such a society, given the choice?
Maybe those particular 19th century conditions are impossible to recreate, but I think it's worth heading in that direction, at least.

Blogger wreckage November 17, 2016 1:09 AM  

I'm a libertarian in that I want to be left alone, and I extend that right to everyone. I believe that can only work within a stable State and a stable Culture.

Pretty much everything else is just quibbling over inane and pointless details of ideology. I want freedom as an outcome, not as a pipe-dream, so I am not wedded to any particular ideological structure.

I also deny the idea that a person should morally be as concerned about a stranger as about his children, as concerned about a foreigner as about his countrymen.

I don't call myself Conservative because they are sell-outs, what Vox later identified as "Cuckservatives".

Anonymous Bruce November 17, 2016 7:26 AM  

Libertarianism might work if most people were like the average libertarian.

Anonymous Little Birdie November 17, 2016 9:03 AM  

This is ironic since it was Jeffrey Tucker who wrote those "Racist Ron Paul" newsletters that eventually destroyed Ron's campaign...

It appears Jeff is OK with white nationalism as long as he is getting paid to write under someone else's bio.

Blogger Aeoli Pera November 17, 2016 10:04 AM  

@168, what I was going for is a great deal like a caricature.

1 – 200 of 207 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts