Egalitarianism Destroys Humanity

Bionic Mosquito has a new post recounting Murray Rothbard’s intellectual assault on the notion of egalitarianism, which he rightly called a “revolt against nature.”

BM ends on a note that, like so many other lines, tell us everything we need to know about the belief system and its adherents.

Such egalitarian ideas can only be made manifest only via the most totalitarian of methods and can only result in the destruction of humanity.

I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: Egalitarianism is ultimately totalitarian because the only way to make people all the same is to force them to be. The natural state of mankind is that of utterly inequality. Every man is unequal to who he was the day before and the next day after that.

I appreciate to some degree concerns over acknowledging this. If some people are superior to others, then it lends possible moral credence to oppressing them or possibly eradicating them.

However, we see that exact same behavior among egalitarians against anyone who exposes their viewpoint for the falsehood that it is. Anyone who is better in any meaningful way is castigated and persecuted, while loserdom is celebrated.

Yes, inequality is often caused by violence or external factors that limit people’s abilities or achievements. But the push for equality is an inherently violent one, just as trying to make all kids in a foot race just as fast requires threats or actual coercion against the fastest child. It denies the moral agency of the individual and thus, their humanity.

This is why communist systems as implemented always fall on their ass. When everyone is treated the same and gets the same thing regardless of effort and productivity, then why strive to be better than others? Why work harder than the laziest person? Why do anything at all? They can’t expect you to work harder or, God forbid, as productively as others who are performing better.

This is why I maintain a very careful balance with work, because the fruits of that extra labor can be taken away in one form or another from my by the state and given to others. There are plenty of opportunities to direct our energies and passions elsewhere than our day jobs and in areas where we are taxed the more we improve.

People often mistake “hard work” to only apply in your official “career.” I disagree. We should put our time into projects where we reap the rewards that can’t be transfer to someone else under the guise of “social justice.”

I want to be superior to others in ways that I cannot be forced (yet) to be made their equal for the sake of a warped ideology.

Advertisements
Posted in communism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Karl Marx On Free Trade

In a speech in 1848 titled “On the question of free trade,” Karl Marx concluded with this remark (bold emphasis added).

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolutionIt is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

This same observation is often brought up men such as Vox Day regarding free trade versus protectionism.

 I do not deny that free trade benefits certain parties, the point is that it also harms other parties whose costs are never factored into the equation. The point that I was making  when I referred to the maximum efficiencies provided is that the argument for economic efficiency to which free traders so often appeal – free trade is good for the economy – necessarily and intrinsically includes the free movement of labor and capital. If one is going to appeal to the good of the economy as a whole without considering the costs to various elements of the economy, then it is every bit as reasonable to argue for the free movement of labor combined with restricting the movement of goods as it is to argue the reverse.

Like Marx, Vox argues that free trade undermines nations. The difference is that one of them thinks this is good, the other does not.

So my question is this: Why did a communist like Marx think free trade was a good thing, and were his reasons based on an accurate assessment of the net effect of free trade on a nation?

Before anyone asks, no, this is not me opposing “free trade,” though I would want to qualify what that means exactly.

I think in this discussion it is good to start with that: What do you mean by free trade?

The problem is, libertarians often dwell in the hypothetical. Free trade in which two parties exchanges goods and services without any state involved is both laudable and perfectly libertarian, but wholly removed from reality. Governments exist and regulate these matters. So what is the ideal situation, and are there any countries out there with a trade policy that best reflects free trade as envisioned?

And concerning issues such as NAFTA and the EU, “free trade agreements” are like born-again virgins: self-contradictory terms.

I don’t unilaterally and unconditionally support government policies just because it benefits one group. Like Vox Day, I’m interested in the full picture. It’s also why I don’t unconditionally support tax cuts and deregulation that give one group a financial advantage over their competitors purely due to tax code preferences.

What this also is, is me not being a hypocrite. I’ve taken open border libertarians to task for completely ignoring the fact that their immigration stance is aligned or fits within the agenda of globalists.

Now, it is my turn to adhere to my own standards. The fact that Marx supported free trade deserves investigation, at the very least.

One Marxist site discussing the speech offers this explanation for his position (obviously their words, not mine):

Marx said he voted for free trade as opposed to protectionism because in most cases this would be the quickest path to capitalist development and thereby the revolutionary class struggle to overthrow capitalism. But Marx also pointed to examples of where the bourgeoisie cleared away barriers to its development by utilizing protectionism. So Marxism hardly obligates one to declare for any free trade measure nor any protectionist measure. In fact, the whole issue of whether capitalist development would go faster under this or that policy is always a big issue for the bourgeoisie, but not the proletariat.What the proletariat must always do is maintain its independence from both the free-trade and protectionist wings of capitalism.

In other words, Marx didn’t favor free trade for ideological reasons. As he put it, “in this revolutionary sense alone” did he support it. His stance was more practical or pragmatic in nature. He had an end goal, and free trade achieved that faster than protectionism. The fact that he held a similar policy as genuine free traders was a coincidence, at least in the minds of Marxists.

However, this doesn’t evade the question I have, and I’m sure you do, too: Does free trade actually produce the kind of outcome Marx describes in the closing part of his speech?

I fully admit I don’t have solid rebuttal to offer, but that has more to do with my limited knowledge of economics.

However, it is sad to see the irony that libertarians and marxists hold the same view on trade appears to be lost on many, including one writer at the Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEE).

It is a shame, that even when virtually all intellectuals, from F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman to Karl Marx and Keynes, have agreed that free trade is the best, there are those who would still defend protectionism.

Surely that should raise questions, since they agreed for entirely different reasons. Marx saw destructive tendencies in free trade, whereas libertarians see prosperity. Marx saw a path toward abolishing capitalism, while libertarians consider it a path to economic freedom.

Like with borders and immigration, pro-open border libertarians and globalists support it for entirely different reasons and envision totally separate outcomes.

Only one side can be right for the right reasons.

 

Posted in borders, free market, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Cuckservative Bluffing

Vox Day writes:

The “dire warning” column is a longtime staple for conservative columnists. I’ve been hearing conservatives issuing dire warnings to liberals about the dreadful consequences of their actions for nearly 40 years now.

And do you know what I have concluded as a result? Conservatives are not going to do anything at all to resist liberal or government violence, ever. They never have.

They didn’t resist when their children were bused. They didn’t resist when their schools were secularized. They didn’t resist when their country was invaded by 130 million foreigners. They didn’t resist when their churches were converged. They didn’t resist when their right to carry cash was restricted. They didn’t resist when their rights to speech were removed. They didn’t resist when their wives left them and divorce-raped them. They didn’t resist when their children were kidnapped by judicial fiat.

I no longer believe they will resist even when their guns are confiscated or when their religion is outlawed. What evidence do we have that conservatives will do anything at all except complain about liberals, vote for do-nothing Republicans, and carefully distance themselves from anyone who looks even remotely possible of actually doing anything?

Is he right? This question becomes pertinent when deciding who to form close ties and relations with. I don’t want to be surrounded by men who talk tough but cower when the moment of truth comes. I want my friends to be those whose actions speak for themselves and who will stand by me in a crisis, when our convictions compel us to make difficult decisions.

An acquaintance of mine has a sign in his man cave that says “Lord, if I should die, let me die surrounded by a pile of empty casings.” He is quiet and a man of few words, but everything about him says he will live up to that ideal. That’s the kind of man you want in your company.

Whatever he calls himself doesn’t really matter, whether it be a conservative or a patriot. Labels matter less than character.

Be wary of the man who talks big but has nothing to actually show for it in his life. Be tenfold apprehensive if no one is afraid to do him wrong.  A man whom others fear to offend is a man who will defend himself if his rights are violated.

Posted in conservativism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Libertarians (Wrongly) Presuppose Common Values

Over at the Orthosphere, writer Kristor levels a criticism of libertarianism that it presupposes the absence of any common culture (don’t misunderstand his use of the word “cult”).

Libertarianism is ever the precursor to tyranny. For, it proposes the maximum proliferation of disparate cults, that – precisely because they are compelling cults respecting First Things – cannot but condemn and abjure each other, and wish each other deleted, and so sooner or later find themselves at hot war. Tyranny then is needed, to maintain social order.

A similar charge was leveled against libertarianism by Jack Donovan years ago (his website makes it impossible to find old essays now) in which he argued that individualism is only possible through a large, powerful state. In its absence, people turn to tribes or collective groups to find identity.

I really don’t care to argue with Kristor or Donovan as much as I’m piggybacking off his remarks, because this isn’t really a critique of libertarianism philosophy as it is against the presumed values of the rank-and-file adherent, whether they be a DC-Beltway libertine or a culturally conservative small town Evangelical.

Libertarianism is only concerned with coercion and aggression; it is an incomplete moral theory and does not claim or attempt to address other issues. Thus, there is nothing un-libertarian about people forming collective associations in the form of nations, societies, or cultures. The idea that your next door neighbor should be just as likely to have nothing in common with you that matters as they actually do, is a product of modern Western shibboleth on multiculturalism and “diversity.”

The fact that many libertarians have their own peculiar Utopian vision of how the world would function without these entities is undeniable – and laughable.

I’ve come to pick on fellow libertarians lately because they tend to get so many critical areas just as wrong as non-libertarians, and in some ways it’s much worse.

We’re always going to have some form of a coercive government; I defy anyone to say this isn’t going to be the case. So for someone to hold that states or governments have some duties or obligations to fulfill in certain areas of life, since they will always exist and hold power over those services, is logical and easy for me to overlook.

However, it is absolutely inexcusable for libertarians to think that every single person on this planet is some sort of atomized individual with no collective identity whatsoever, that they are hypothetically just as bit a libertarian as they themselves are, and that this has no bearing whatsoever when they migrate en masse from one political territory to another. Further, they hold that libertarians are morally bound to not observe these obvious patterns of behavior and pretend that it is impossible to make sound judgement accordingly. They presuppose everyone else shares their beliefs and infer that libertarianism cannot be realized until every single person the planet has converted to the Cause.

This mentality and attitude only enables and give moral support to horrendous policies affected on a national and global level that is sure to bring about the very chaos and conflict that our detractors claim, and as Kristor points out, this leads to the very tyranny we libertarians claim to oppose so dearly.

Whatever we want to think of Chris Cantwell’s current political trajectory, he was right when he said that libertarianism isn’t a suicide pact; sadly, I’ve come to find that while the philosophy itself is anything but, much of the movement that bears its name is fully determined to make it so.

People kvetched when Jeff Deist said blood and soil still matter to people and we libertarians ignore it at our own risk, but he was more right than perhaps he knows. Ignoring these things has only relegated many libertarians to the corner of the room and irrelevant to the larger discussion.

Or worse, they become useful idiots to the people they think they’re actually opposing.

Posted in Culture, libertarianism | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Modern Bigotry

Apparently antisemitism is on the rise following the election of Trump.

Social justice activists at a New York high school successfully shut down a production of “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” after a Jewish student landed a lead role.

Protests of the production began when an African-American student quit Ithaca High School’s musical production due to the role of Esmeralda being given to a Jewish classmate.

“It shows you that theater wasn’t made for you,” the student told the Ithaca Journal. “And it shows you that, if you can’t get the parts that are written for you, what parts are you going to get?”

Student activists then banded together under the umbrella of Students United Ithaca and wrote a letter that included a list of demands, saying that, while the young lady cast as Esmeralda was “a stellar actor, singer, and dancer” any production would be “lucky to have,” she couldn’t be cast in this role because she is the “epitome of Jewishness.”

…..The Ithaca City School District announced it canceled the musical in an attempt to be “more inclusive and culturally responsive” in their “efforts to eliminate institutional biases.”

……After the cancelation, the student group made more demands in a recent Facebook post.

“Stop the racist and openly stated policy of ‘color blind’ casting in the ICSD,” the group wrote, adding “because of institutionalized racism this results in Jewish children being cast in roles written as Jewish parts and also Jewish children being cast in roles that were specifically intended for people of color.”

Ladies and gents, this is the kind of hatred that spurred all kinds of pogroms and ethnic cleansings throughout history.

Except it wasn’t a Jewish girl in question (heh); she was actually white.

But let’s all imagine for a moment how much kvetching would occur had this story actually concerned a Jewish girl.

I grew up being read a pre-SJW children’s book by a preschool teacher about a black girl who encountered resistance from classmates for trying to play Peter Pan in a school play.

We have come full circle, ladies and gents.

Perhaps now is time to quote the great Jack Donovan on why this is happening, and what needs to happen for it to change.

The best and most successful white men in the world are infected with parasites and if they refuse to stand up and tell these garbage people to fuck off, they deserve to fail. They deserve to be enslaved by their lessers. Their race deserves to perish.

Sadly, it’s not older whites who will suffer so much as their offspring who will live as a minority in their ancestors’ homeland. If this high school incident is any indication, merely being relegated to second-class citizenship might be a positive outcome.

Posted in Culture, doom and gloom, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Notion of “Common Property” Is Inherently Communist

"Common Property" Is Inherently Communist

How “common property” is treated.

Bob Higgs is a libertarian American ex-pat living in Mexico who in a recent blog post wrote the following within the context of immigration and borders (bold emphasis added):

As for so-called public property, which the government purports to own, the situation is different: the ownership of such property justly resides in no particular person(s); it is therefore common property, and any person whatsoever, including a migrant, has as much right as any other person to gain access to and use it.

This is a communist, not libertarian, take on property. The libertarian perspective is that state-owned property resides in the people who are forced to finance its control and maintenance.

This is why back in the day only property owners could vote; they were the ones forced to pay the tax, so only they got a say in the matter. And were we to return to this voting restriction, we would be able to roll back much of the state.

If you are taxed and that money goes toward the control or maintenance of property, you have a just claim to deciding how that property is handled. If you aren’t, then you do not.

Is anyone seriously going to claim that I as American have a right to access state-owned property in China or India and can use it however I wish?

It’s amazing that some libertarians can argue that taxation is theft, yet then argue that property held by a criminal entity through that theft somehow belongs to everyone on the mere basis that it is illegitimately possessed.

As I wrote recently, under this logic it is perfectly acceptable for drug dealers to cook meth in RVs in national forests, or even on the sidewalk. In fact, any form of behavior is acceptable on any state-owned property, provided it is not technically “aggressive” or “coercive” in nature.

However, the fact remains that this system is not even remotely close to resembling how that land would be managed were it privatized.

Higg’s “common property” policy is currently adopted by cities such as Seattle and Portland regarding the homeless, and the outcome is as plain, obvious, and predictable as natural resources “belonging to the people” creates shortages in socialist countries.

The result has been the complete takeover of bike paths and public parks by drug addicts and the mentally ill, none of whom are technically acting “aggressive” or “coercive” when they urinate and defecate in public. In Denver, the city has decriminalized defecating on the sidewalk to prevent the deportation of illegal aliens.

You smell that stench? Apparently it’s the fragrance of liberty.

Perhaps these cities should give these people $1,000  and a one-way bus ticket to Mexico. After all, Mexico belongs to the homeless in America just as much as the Mexicans who already live there (and have lived for millennia) and pay that government’s taxes.

In fact, the U.S. should send its all its homeless and unemployed into foreign countries and have them simply occupy the common property, and if they happen to get access to welfare goodies at the same time, well, the people already living do too, so there!

My parting thought is that open border libertarians should avoid calling the Alt. Right a bunch of left-wing socialists when their own treatment of state-controlled land is no different than that of the communist party. Either that, or they can take up my standing challenge as to why their view on the matter is perfectly aligned with the views of Hillary Clinton and other Progressives who favor bigger government in every aspect of life.

Either globalists are all secretly libertarians, or open border advocates within libertarianism need to take a step back and rethink their position.

Obviously I’m not arguing in favor of Soviet bloc-style borders and immigration. I’m saying the people who are taxed and forced to adhere to the laws of a political jurisdiction have a just claim in trying to regulate how the finite amount of resources is handled and restrict who has access to it.

For libertarians, the idea is to have the management of state-controlled property resemble the private sector as much as possible. There is no example of a “free-for-all” on private land; all land owners to one extent or another impose restrictions and rules for those who enter and are allowed to enter.

 

Posted in borders, Immigration, libertarianism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Additional Thought On Open Borders Debate

I keep having these epiphanies, so there it is.

We have to keep in mind what open border advocates say compared to what they truly mean and the implications for it.

When they advocates open borders, they are not advocating for the privatization of the land in question. That is a separate discussion entirely.

They are advocating that the government controlling those borders not place any restrictions on who comes, goes, and stays on that land.

Here’s the importance of that: Under this scenario, a government still has power over the border. It’s not the same as getting government out of entirely and having it fully privatized. Under that scenario, the private groups would take over and assume responsibility.

Under the open borders policy as advocated, governments are still in charge, but don’t do anything. However, this is not a reflection of the free market or privatization. They are using coercion to control land at the financial expense of people who have no say over how that property is managed. This is neither libertarian nor a reflection of the market.

In the free market, a private group would assume control of the land and financial obligation for it, but also place restrictions to fulfill both elements.

Open borders advocates’ argument on immigration and human movement, if applied elsewhere, would hold that drug dealers should be allowed to cook meth in an RV within National Parks because the state has no legitimate authority to enforce those rules because it has no just claim to that land it acquired through coercion and finances through theft. Also, in a libertarian society drug dealing would be legal and so would meth production, so the state has no right to enforce anti-drug laws, either.

However, any libertarian would half a brain understands that though the land is controlled and managed through theft and coercion, allowing actual anarchy as commonly understood in society, is nothing but chaos. Also, he would note that all of this is a distortion of the market due to government interference.

A private “national park” would be run by a group that has acquired the land and the money to manage it legitimately. To think they would have no rules about what is allowed on that land or who steps foot on it requires more than cognitive dissonance; it requires pure deceit and lying on the part of the person saying it.

 

Posted in borders, Immigration, libertarianism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments