ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Saturday, May 06, 2017

Darkstream: why libertarianism is dead

I think I got a bit off course on this one before I properly articulated my reasoning, but it planted a few seeds for further contemplation. As usual, I need to write things down in order to be certain the logic holds up, but I'm pretty confident that it does.

Labels:

71 Comments:

Anonymous Mathias May 06, 2017 6:09 PM  

Libertarianism dies with the realization that only a minority of the White population are actually compatible with it's designs. We can have it in restricted preserves, with the right population, but it's not a proscription for all races of men. It's not even a proscription for all White men.

So the dream dies...

Anonymous Mathias May 06, 2017 6:52 PM  

@2,

Also, Rand is not libertarian, and did not like L/libertarians, even if her fiction has some currency amongst the Libertarian well-to-do set.

Mises and Rothbard on the other hand, were both Jewish and correct about many things, like Bobby Fischer. Just because it's not a good idea to trust a source does not mean it's a good idea to disregard everything a source has to say. Merely, it should color the interpretation.

Blogger tz May 06, 2017 6:55 PM  

@1 Error - Truth is not genetic. That someone who escaped the Nazis and one who escaped the USSR means they might have something to say.
Jewish doctors and lawyers don't prosper by harming their patients and clients. That doesn't mean they will do the right thing politically.

The problem with Rothbard is libertarians treat him as some kind of God (as others do Rand). But the whole point is to seek the truth via reason and evidence, not to defer to someone dead.

Blogger Dave Narby May 06, 2017 6:56 PM  

It's a lot more constructive when you punch Left.

...Just sayin'.

Anonymous BBGKB May 06, 2017 7:14 PM  

When I click on the link it says replay unavailable is it supposed to be that way?

Jewish doctors and lawyers don't prosper by harming their patients and clients

They have some of the best malpractice defense & have the benefit of jewish judges. ER doctors always seem to have a special hate for jewish named radiologists because the always recommend more radiology studies as defensive medicine that lines their pocket more. There was a crack down on a situation because they would pad with the most expensive studies when there were cheaper more definitive studies for the same thing. I will have to dig it up, but I think it was MRI as the more expensive study but ultrasound as the cheaper more definitive study.

Blogger VD May 06, 2017 7:26 PM  

It's a lot more constructive when you punch Left.

First, libertarians are politically irrelevant. Second, it is remarkably stupid to imply that critiquing an obviously flawed theory is "punching right".

Once more, you demonstrate that you don't even understand the words you are using.

It is extremely constructive to point out the utopian impossibility of libertarianism because it will permit those who are interested in advancing human liberty can focus on genuine possibilities.

Libertarianism is as dead as communism was once robots and the information economy made it undeniably clear to everyone that labor was not the source of value. Once its universal claims are shown to be false, there is nothing left to defend.

Blogger Shamgar May 06, 2017 7:33 PM  

I left libertarianism when they had no answer to why we have borders at all. The logical conclusion is that there are no borders. Anyone can come and go as they please and to say otherwise is state oppression. But a people (a nation) has to, needs to, have borders in order to thrive and propagate.

Anonymous Mathias May 06, 2017 7:43 PM  

@7,

Well, I left when I realized that Libertarianism was eating it's own seed corn, genetically. Does no good to adhere to an ideology that will destroy it's adherents within 3 generations. (At least, the open borders version would, at it seems to have pushed out all competitors.)

Anonymous Panzer Man May 06, 2017 7:46 PM  

Shamgar wrote:I left libertarianism when they had no answer to why we have borders at all. The logical conclusion is that there are no borders. Anyone can come and go as they please and to say otherwise is state oppression. But a people (a nation) has to, needs to, have borders in order to thrive and propagate.

Sounds like some kind of "humans are angels" theory. Rather than the aggressive, self-interested, dangerous pack predators that we are. An absence of borders is an open invitation to the brave, the ruthless, and the unscrupulous -- who are always numerous -- to pounce on the incautious, weak, or foolish.

Getting ride of borders is like abolishing the outer walls of your house on the assumption that nobody will haul off your stuff, as long as the state is kept appropriately weak or absent.

Anonymous Night Haunter May 06, 2017 7:56 PM  

Could Libertarianism be saved by combining it with Closed Borders like Hans Herman Hoppe?

Anonymous Jefferson Kim May 06, 2017 7:56 PM  

"Right-Libertarians" like Hoppe, Rockwell, & Tom Woods (Closed border Libertarians) share most of your criticisms with the Left-Libertarians (Open border Libertarians).

https://youtu.be/EO68Kvb9fD4?t=1h1m40s

Some memorable quotes from Hoppe in this video:

"Left-Libertarians are the Cultural Marxists' useful idiots on their march toward totalitarian, social control."

"I would add, at a minimum, be and do whatever makes you happy, but always keep in mind, that as long as you are an integral part of the world-wide division of labour, your existence and well-being depends decisively on the continued existence of others, and especially on the continued existence of white heterosexual male dominated societies, their patriarchic or patrician family structure, and their bourgeois and aristocratic lifestyle and conduct."

====

Other than your debate with Bob Murphy on Free Trade, can you refer to a debate you've had with a far Right Libertarian?

Other than free trade, I'm not seeing much difference between your 16 points and what Rothbard would agree on as well, or even what Ron Paul might say.

Blogger VD May 06, 2017 8:03 PM  

Could Libertarianism be saved by combining it with Closed Borders like Hans Herman Hoppe?

No, because it reveals its core basis to be false. That's like Lenin trying to save communism by permitting the farmers to keep and sell their grain. The very necessity reveals the intrinsic falsehood.

Blogger VD May 06, 2017 8:03 PM  

Other than your debate with Bob Murphy on Free Trade, can you refer to a debate you've had with a far Right Libertarian?

No, never had one.

Anonymous Mathias May 06, 2017 8:08 PM  

@10,

Agree with Vox here, once you strip out the core, you can't save it. You're just scrapping it for parts at that point. Nothing wrong with that of course, libertarianism has some nice parts, and they are parts of our culture that would be a shame to lose. Giving up on libertarianism doesn't mean giving up on the idea of political liberty.

Blogger Smokey Dust May 06, 2017 8:33 PM  

I left libertarianism when they couldn't figure out their meet ups were whiter than Bing Crosby singing White Christmas at a mayo tasting contest. Refusing to notice that was enough for me.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 06, 2017 8:40 PM  

Other than free trade, I'm not seeing much difference between your 16 points and what Rothbard would agree on as well, or even what Ron Paul might say.

Would Rothbard or Ron Paul really agree with this?

14. The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.

Those 14 words are among the most incendiary.

Anonymous JAG May 06, 2017 8:42 PM  

I'd be more attentive to libertarian political theory if its open borders adherents practiced what they preached by removing all locks and alarms from their homes. I mean, it's oppressive if I can't just walk into any given open borders libertarian's home and live their whenever I feel like it.

Yes, I'm being facetious, but open borders is even more stupid and suicidal than what I describe in my first paragraph. Source: history.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 06, 2017 8:44 PM  

@9 Panzer Man
Getting ride of borders is like abolishing the outer walls of your house on the assumption that nobody will haul off your stuff, as long as the state is kept appropriately weak or absent.

I have never, ever, not even once met a Libertarian or a libertarian or a liberteeny who didn't have at least one functioning lock on his, her or its front door. "Open borders" are fine until it comes to their own personal safety. Then it's not ok. Not even a little ok. They never see why this matters, either.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 06, 2017 8:45 PM  

@17

Jinx! You owe me a beer.

Anonymous JAG May 06, 2017 8:48 PM  

A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents wrote:@17

Jinx! You owe me a beer.


No problemo! Whatcha want? Michelob?

Anonymous Jefferson Kim May 06, 2017 8:54 PM  

@12 VD

No, because it reveals its core basis to be false. That's like Lenin trying to save communism by permitting the farmers to keep and sell their grain. The very necessity reveals the intrinsic falsehood.

====

Can you refer to some further reading that directly refutes Right Libertarians (ie. Hoppe, Rothbard, Rockwell)?

Other than Free Trade, I'm having difficulty figuring out the differences between Alt-Right 16 points and what Right-Libertarians would ultimately agree on.

I also recognize the point may be moot because SJWs have essentially hijacked "Libertarians."

Anonymous VFM #6306 May 06, 2017 9:05 PM  

Proto-Hypotheses

The 16 Points + Active Deconvergence = Cultural AltRight
The 16 Points + Disruptive Voting (including riot attendance and "Eff You" Ballots) = Political AltRight
The 16 Points + Technology = AltTech
The 16 Points + Border Control = AltNationalism

I think that when you ask "But what do we do?" the answer is a fourfold focus:

Deconvergence
Disruptive voting
Technology
Wall

If this is true, I find it interesting that neither family nor nation come up, nor do they seem to apply. More interestingly, I think these four things, when the former serious libertarian thinks on them, sees that they blend.

Technology + Wall = Antifragile
Deconvergence + Voting = SJW Disemployment
Voting + Wall = Dambusting
Technology + Deconvergence = ebooks and efilm

It is a long game of resource management and a short game of resource implementation. I'm pretty old to be this excited about seeing some new ideas that might actually work.

Anonymous Jefferson Kim May 06, 2017 9:06 PM  

@16 Probably not in those words. He's Closed Borders.

Hoppe says it explicitly in the video I had linked to previously. Check it out.

Also Lew Rockwell:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/05/bionic-mosquito/liberty-flourish-best-nation/

Blogger Jefferson Kim May 06, 2017 9:07 PM  

@16 Murray Rothbard yes. He's been called a White Supremacist Nationalist.

Anonymous Icicle May 06, 2017 9:07 PM  

STAY ON TARGET VOX

STAY ON TARGET

Blogger Jefferson Kim May 06, 2017 9:09 PM  

@16 Here's some more articles of Right-Wing Libertarians.

Murray Rothbard
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/02/murray-n-rothbard/program-right-wing-populism/

Jeff Deist
https://mises.org/blog/market-borders-not-open-borders

Blogger Vikki Wilson May 06, 2017 9:15 PM  

Vox, I don't hear the alt-right ever making use of the concept of Self-Determination of the world's peoples to advance their nationalist arguments. Why is this? The legitimacy of Self Determination seems to have been enshrined in the principles of international law and ratified by the earlier era of Human Rightism pushed by the UN/League of Nations-type thinking (e.g. that's how the "Palestinian Struggle" is still framed and legitimised for the West, when said “struggle” is actually religious)
Self-Determination’s legitimacy is now contested by No Borders human rightism.
Is it therefore now well past time for the Alt-Right to explicitly appropriate and defend the principle of Self Determination?

Anonymous VFM #6306 May 06, 2017 9:22 PM  

Jefferson Kim - You may want to read Vox's thoughts on Rothbard here:

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/06/limits-of-demand.html

More importantly, we are all very much aware that libertarians have had to shift libertarianism to "closed borders libertarianism" in order to keep whatever illusory coherency they can. Perhaps they are doing it out of genuine hope, as in:

"Damn, we need to tweak this ideology and put it into a more limited reality in order for it to work right."

But in effect it is this:

"Damn, it it doesn't work in the real world so lets put a few theoretical parameters on it so it really can't be tested until long after we are dead."

Just as Rothbard only toward the very end of his life finally recognized that open borders were a bad idea, the late acknowledgement by former libertarians that closed borders are necessary is irrelevant to the ideology. It doesn't make libertarianism any more sound, nor any more reality based.

It just demonstrates that libertarianism is a dead idea, and anyone clinging to its precepts will move on and eventually become unrecognizable to the core ideology.

Anonymous User May 06, 2017 9:26 PM  

Mind the * gap

Anonymous VFM #6306 May 06, 2017 9:27 PM  

@27, Come on Vikki. Point #5. Get with the program. But East Timor really isn't going to be near the top of the list of concerns during the restoration of Western Civilization.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 06, 2017 9:29 PM  

Dave Narby wrote:It's a lot more constructive when you punch Left.
Punching Libertarians is punching left.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 06, 2017 9:31 PM  

Even communism is a more coherent philosophy than the spergiest levels of libertarianism, wherein the adherents believe that things will work great in a world without governments and borders, with everyone voluntarily entering into contracts for every conceivable interaction with other human beings.

When you ask them who will enforce the contracts, they lay out a framework for a new government without even realizing what they're doing. Every single time.

Blogger Jefferson Kim May 06, 2017 9:45 PM  

@28 The link referred to the Austrian Economics side of things. I already acknowledge the differences on "Free Trade." My question is in regards to other differences.

Is your position that "Right-Libertarians (AKA Closed Border Libertarians)" are not actually "Libertarian"?

https://mises.org/library/open-borders-are-assault-private-property

Blogger Erynne May 06, 2017 10:00 PM  

I don't know exactly why, but I have always had the idea that libertarians want less government interference into the marketplace. The over-criminalization of law, bloated regulations, subsidies, private firms vying for public funding, the misallocation of resources, End the Fed and the distortion of money, and on and on, most of which is outlined in Tom Woods book Rollback.

Repealing and shrinking gov't is what attracts me to libertarianism. I don't see any other ideology attempting to argue for smaller gov't. Even the 16 points says nothing about size of gov't. However, I do concede that there's no point in discussing eliminating gov't programs if the nation is swamped with socialists.

One last thought, was libertarianism ever alive? Without the internet, there would be very few people around who ever heard of Mises or Rothbard or Hazlitt, and most likely more have read and discussed their ideas long after their deaths than ever in their lives. When Ron Paul ran for the second time in 2012, that's when I knew libertarianism wasn't viable. Why? Because Ron Paul was mentioning eliminating the income tax, and I had heard all my life people bellyaching about the income tax, and now someone finally comes along who might have a chance at getting rid of it, and then I suddenly find people rationalizing why we shouldn't get rid of the income tax. I learned then and there that people don't actually want change, and if they won't look favorably upon repealing the income tax, then how on earth will they stand literally anything a libertarian proposes?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 06, 2017 10:18 PM  

Jefferson Kim wrote:Is your position that "Right-Libertarians (AKA Closed Border Libertarians)" are not actually "Libertarian"?


What Libertarian principle allow you to tell your neighbor he may not employ or lease his property to whomever he wants? If that involves crossing a border, what Libertarian principle allow you to initiate force to stop him?

Closed borders are an unprincipled exception to the NAP, and cannot be justified under it, but only by appealing to externalities. Which is to say, that the NAP is in and of itself insufficient. It must be violated, as a matter of routine, in order to have a Libertarian society. Your neighbor's liberty must be restricted, not as an exception, but as a matter of course.

Since the NAP is the basis, and often the sole basis, for all Libertarian theory, this exception itself proves the principle wrong.

Everything else is just an argument over how wrong.

Blogger Lazarus May 06, 2017 10:19 PM  

Erynne wrote:Why? Because Ron Paul was mentioning eliminating the income tax, and I had heard all my life people bellyaching about the income tax, and now someone finally comes along who might have a chance at getting rid of it, and then I suddenly find people rationalizing why we shouldn't get rid of the income tax.

This. People are just too corrupt or unworthy for Libertarianism. This makes it a worthy ideal, with zero chance of implementation.

When the Kingdom of God is established, the people will be made worthy of complete Liberty, but not before.

Blogger Cassandros the Elder May 06, 2017 10:34 PM  

Interesting, Vox, that you characterize yourself as formerly being a "Christian libertarian". Before the Alt-right was much of a thing, I concluded from the libertarians I knew that they were people who wanted to be conservatives but did not want to believe in God. Isn't not wanting to believe in God pretty coincident with not wanting any limits?

Blogger Jefferson Kim May 06, 2017 10:35 PM  

@35 I have provided numerous links in previous posts on the Right-Libertarian argument for Closed Borders. You're arguing with a hallucination.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 06, 2017 10:50 PM  

Cassandros the Elder wrote:sn't not wanting to believe in God pretty coincident with not wanting any limits?
There are three kinds of people who don't want limits.
Some know they don't need the big limits and they find the small limits annoying. These are most of the "small l" Libertarians and Christian Libertarians.

Another type wants to remove one particular big limit (usury, say, or drugs or sodomy) but needs a principled reason that it can be ignored. Libertarianism provides the "principle" that limits are inherently violent, and hence immoral. The are sperge cases who pop up with the same answer to every question and infest the internet.

The third type simply wants no limits on the criminal behavior they are likely to commit, principles be damned. These are called Leftists.

Blogger Cassandros the Elder May 06, 2017 11:21 PM  

Mr. Whiplash, I wasn't talking in general about people who don't like limits, only in those who don't want to believe in God but who want to be on the right. This is common among the libertarians I've known.

Blogger DeploraBard May 06, 2017 11:21 PM  

Bingo on the 3rd type. They exploit every system to failure.

Blogger DeploraBard May 06, 2017 11:22 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous VFM #6306 May 07, 2017 12:03 AM  

There is nothing Libertarian in your prescriptive links, Kim. So the argument is moot. They are just versions of AltRight and transitional AltLite.

They do not express, in any case, an argument remotely resembling Libertarianism.

Blogger ZhukovG May 07, 2017 12:13 AM  

So, a Nationalist Libertarian is not a Libertarian at all?

But, if a Nationalist environment provides the greatest liberty to the nation(people), isn't that as Libertarian as one can practically achieve?

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable May 07, 2017 12:27 AM  

While we're asking interesting questions, why has the "weaponized autism" of the /pollacks trended at least national/populist, if not "right" per se?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 07, 2017 12:33 AM  

ZhukovG wrote:But, if a Nationalist environment provides the greatest liberty to the nation(people), isn't that as Libertarian as one can practically achieve?
Libertarian doesn't mean "maximal liberty" Libertarian means "following the non-aggression principle."
The belief is that the NAP will lead to liberty, and many Libertarians have redefined liberty to mean following the NAP.

An anarchic cesspit where the society as a whole (lacking government) does nothing to coerce the Libertarian to do what he does not want to do, or, more accurately, not to do what he wants to do, would be Libertarian. Even if he was forced to kill to protect himself, provided only that no-one tried to prevent him killing people who tried to aggress him.

A decent, peaceful, ordered society where the Libertarian had to license his car and pay taxes for roads would not be.

Anonymous DissidentRight May 07, 2017 12:54 AM  

For the uninitiated, right-wing libertarians (e.g., Woods) hold the NAP sacrosanct. National borders directly conflict the NAP. (If you cannot figure this out, you are dumber than a midwit.) Property rights are NOT analogous to national borders, because property rights are held by the individual, whereas the national border is held by the State or some other form of collective. A sufficiently wealthy party (such as a xeno capitalist) can effectively dispossess/destroy any nation without once violating the NAP.

Also, right-wing libertarians hold the State as the root of war, rather merely a root of war. They believe war cannot exist in a stateless society (this has everything to do their excruciating focus on the Individual). Obviously, we know that international competition is also a root of war…diversity + proximity and all that…and, therefore, international competition tends to produce States.

These are just two very basic items that blow the axioms of right-wing libertarianism out of the water.

I like to think of the NAP (and property rights) more as helpful tools of description and measurement rather than legal/moral ideals or imperatives. Although when breaking new ground, they are a good starting point…until experience finds a better way.

Anonymous An Extremely Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than A Basket Of Twenty Deplorable Cents May 07, 2017 1:10 AM  

@46, 47, others.

Correct me if I err. Libertarians are sure that the Non Aggression Principle once understood is so powerful that anyone who is properly taught it must be converted to Libertarianism. Libertopia would perforce be a place where the Non Aggression Principle would be learned by immersion, by being surrounded by peaceful Libertarians going about their Non Aggressive business. People from other places would come to this Libertopia and be converted to Libertarianism, to full faith in the NAP.

Libertopia: a Magic Dirt NAP.

Blogger Buybuydandavis May 07, 2017 1:32 AM  

VD: I think I got a bit off course on this one before I properly articulated my reasoning

Minute mark for the properly articulated reasoning?

Blogger ZhukovG May 07, 2017 1:41 AM  

If Libertarian isn't about maximizing individual liberty then, whatever its adherents call it, it is not Libertarian.

Blogger Vikki Wilson May 07, 2017 1:45 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Shimshon May 07, 2017 1:46 AM  

I have argued with The Jewish Libertarian (https://thejewishlibertarian.com/) about this.

Thanks to Vox, I even pointed out to him that Rothbard had changed his mind about nationalism before his death. Having read the cited article on his own before our little debate, he conceded this point, but then doubled down like an SJW and insisted that had Rothbard not died when he did, he would've certainly recanted his libertarian heresy eventually. Yes, that was his actual response. Zero substance. I like the guy personally, but he's a stubborn idiot.

Anonymous JAG May 07, 2017 1:48 AM  

Property rights versus borders is an apt comparison to show the ridiculous utopian thinking of NAP Libertarians. Nobody would be foolish enough to trust in NAP because human nature guarantees it will never work, thus it is a colossal waste of time, and Darwin Award level suicidal to implement it. Might as well create Xanadu while you are at it.

Blogger ZhukovG May 07, 2017 1:51 AM  

Only Nationalism can provide the maximum liberty to which a people may aspire based on their genetic and cultural heritage.

Blogger Vikki Wilson May 07, 2017 2:03 AM  



30. VFM #6306
“@27, Come on Vikki. Point #5. Get with the program. But East Timor really isn't going to be near the top of the list of concerns during the restoration of Western Civilization.”

The 16 points # 5
“The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration.”

Thanks VFM #6306, I read, understood and remembered the 16 points. When I look up #5 that you refer me to I find that my words of power are not used.
Your point is that #5 “covers” the right of self-determination and indeed it does - on the conceptual level or what has come to be called “dialectic” in this Communidy.
My proposition is about useful Rhetoric to advance important ideas persuasively. I am asking a limited question about the usefulness of this particular rhetorical formula: “A People’s right to Self-Determination”. Note that the idea already enjoys wide public support and currency. It helps constitute the Westphalian compact of Nations. The-Right-to-Self-Determination is also used today as a positive frame for the national struggle of peoples like the Kurds. If the principle is valid and universal it applies to everyone.
I say I have not really seen this particular rhetorical formula or rosy bit of UN ideology deployed by the Alt-Right in the general public sphere. I speculate that it may work well for Nationalists these days.
Vox’s “Omni Nationalism” is another attempt to find effective rhetoric. ” (I hereby propose a further candidate: “Universal Nationalism” for consideration)
I’ve laboriously clarified my interest in finding words of power (“marriage equality” anyone?)
VFM #6306 (may I call you “0”?) my friend, I hope you may come to see that that this IS the program.



Blogger Antony May 07, 2017 2:26 AM  

Pretty much one of the few things "official" libertarians put forward that id useful to society is to legalise naturally occurring drugs and thus end the power elites & banksters scam known as the "war on drugs".

Blogger John M May 07, 2017 2:50 AM  

Libertarianism is by nature a cuck ideology. Just like liberals libertarians seem to think that all the problems in the world can be solved if everyone forms human chains and sings John Lennon's "Imagine". Imagine there's no countries, and no religions....... yeah right, such a place will be hell on earth because what's there to bind people together?

Anonymous DK Viking May 07, 2017 3:02 AM  

Denmark: Eight arabs on jetskis ram two US women in a pedal boat to death
http://archive.is/OEYyW

USE translation software of own choice

Blogger Shimshon May 07, 2017 4:00 AM  

@56 There's also the Duterte Doctrine.

Blogger Vikki Wilson May 07, 2017 7:00 AM  

Libertarianism is a ridiculous utopian vision of human nature suitable for hippies with flowers in their hair.
Like Pacificism, it's barely worth rebutting.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 07, 2017 9:06 AM  

why has the "weaponized autism" of the /pollacks trended at least national/populist, if not "right" per se?

Because they've recognized the globalist left as scolding nannies who want to tell everyone what to do and say in every aspect of life. The left has gone from "Stay out of our bedrooms" to "We're bringing Muslims and trannies to your bedrooms and you'd better smile and like it." They're also the ones talking about how it might be time to censor the Internet.

That kind of thing has pushed the /pol/acks away from the left and made them willing to listen to alternatives.

Blogger Jefferson Kim May 07, 2017 9:08 AM  

@43

"There is nothing Libertarian in your prescriptive links, Kim. So the argument is moot. They are just versions of AltRight and transitional AltLite."

On the rhetorical level, I agree with VoxDay & with you: Libertarianism is dead. http://voxday.blogspot.com/2017/05/when-rhetoric-doesnt-work.html

On the Dialectic level, can you explain how Han-Hermme Hoppe's argument for closed borders is NOT "Libertarian"?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO68Kvb9fD4

Also, please provide your dialectic definition for "Libertarian."

I suspect our disagreement revolves around semantics rather than substance. Even SJW Libertarians (both dialectical and rhetorically) would not go so far as to claim Hoppe, Woods, Rothbard, Rockwell, Deist & Ron Paul are NOT "libertarians," so I'm interested in your dialectic explanation.

Or perhaps, I'm missing the point entirely, and this was primarily a rhetorical exercise. My overly-romantic hope for dialectic discourse in Internet comments is another piece of evidence that Libertarianism is dead.

Blogger tz May 07, 2017 10:13 AM  

The problem with the NAP (and Molyneux' UPB) is not philosophical (though depending on which version of the NAP there are flaws), the devil is in the detail that anyone can say "non serviam!"

Ask any libertarian about "the social contract" for government and they will say they never agreed. But in what way is the NAP not a social contract, and if I reject the NAP, will you impose it against my will if I "agress"?

Anonymous VFM #6306 May 07, 2017 10:33 AM  

Kim, the fact that Libertarianism must be modified with an adjective [Closed Border Libertarianism] is the killshot.

Closed-Border Libertarianism is to Libertarianism as Social Justice is to Justice.

Blogger tz May 07, 2017 10:33 AM  

Libertarians are undergoing a multilateral NR like purge, not unlike the cuckservatives produced the alt-lite and alt-right. They already had minarchists v.s. anarchists and Rothbard v.s.Rand (v.s. Cato). I think the alt-Right example - praxis over doxy - is setting an example. As is more evidence that you can't ennoble savages.

A conservatism inc. like libertarian inc. with podcasts and such growimg out of the think tanks loke the Mises institute is also forming, but forming an echo chamber.

Blogger tz May 07, 2017 10:39 AM  

Even the open border libertarians say private property is still a border and you would need permission to cross (but barbed wire is currently ignored, would they suggest minefields and guard towers and to pile up the skulls of tresspassers)?

Also, apparently I could fly in on my private property 10,000 soldiers to my town of 1000 and not violate the NAP until they actually turned into an occupying army. Then they would shriek about the violations.

I've also noted we could bring back chattle slavery - Block and Hoppe argue you can sign everything away, and wouldn't Africans be happier here picking cotton than starving in Africa? Just "voluntarily" sign here...

Anonymous SciVo de Plorable May 07, 2017 4:40 PM  

Thank you, Cail Corishev. That makes sense.

Blogger lowell houser May 07, 2017 5:58 PM  

Libertarianism is dead because it doesn't recognize that 95% human beings want to be ruled. r/K-selection - libertarians are a subset of K, those best suited to the frontier where there are almost no people, where EVERYONE has to do for themselves and negotiate for everything without oversight. The ideas WORK, they are logically consistent, but only for that 5% of humans that are base programmed to exist in that fashion and under those circumstances. In other words, libertarians are the colonists that form beach heads for the normal people to land on.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey May 07, 2017 7:25 PM  

"Jewish doctors and lawyers don't prosper by harming their patients and clients."

Dr. Baruch Goldstein did just fine refusing to treat any and all non-Jewish patients during his time in the IDF. Until he chose to go on to his much-celebrated martyrdom, that is.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 07, 2017 7:47 PM  

@66 tz
Also, apparently I could fly in on my private property 10,000 soldiers to my town of 1000 and not violate the NAP until they actually turned into an occupying army. Then they would shriek about the violations.

But not for very long, if those 10,000 troops knew their business.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 08, 2017 10:55 AM  

Libertarianism fails b/c is posits that people make their decisions about essentially all important things via rational (Neocortical) pathways. This is demonstrably false in many well-constructed psychology experiments, not to mention real life.

Philosophical libertarianism's endpoint is the absence of political government. Only market-based order would exist. This is great if people weighed all such interactions the way they decide between the 28 oz can of tomatoes at $1.29 and the 14 oz can at $0.69, but we know for a fact that this is NOT how people decide a host of questions, most of them dealing with social interaction.

The moment one accepts that we are rationalizing, not rational, creatures, libertarianism has no answers. And anyone who watches three women interact for 20 minutes can see that emotion, social hierarchy and interpersonal jockeying dominate, just as the tribal behaviors exhibited by sports fans do the same.

FTR, I think the best humans can hope for is a benign monarchy. Hoppe's discussion of the basis for his (IMO) best book is instructive. If libertarianism's Market Order is incompatible with human nature, then the next best thing is a polity where the power to concentrate benefits while diffusing costs is not democratized. This argues in favor of hereditary monarchy, which has largely open defects (as opposed to today's pandemic "invisible" defects.)

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts