Why Libertarianism Could Not and Will Not Ever Be a Real Movement

 

blumert_rockwell_gordon_rothbard

Sirjamesthegood has written what I consider to be one of the best explanations of how the libertarian movement fell apart and why so many of the normal Western men said “screw it” and joined the Alt. Right.

The writer blames the collapse on things ranging from embracing socially liberal values as “the” libertarian stance to leftist women and feminists taking advantage of the desperation many libertarian men have for female company.

There are some lessons to be learned here.

Libertarianism is not and can never be a true movement as we might think of the conservative or progressive movement. Libertarianism is only concerned with the use of coercion and aggression. The problem with this, is that any movement with exclusively political core values will eventually adopt nonpolitical ones or it will collapse.

I think this was the root cause of the entire “thick/thin” libertarian bickering fest.CJay Engel at Reformed Libertarian goes through the history of the libertarian split. It is worth reading in its entirety.

A lot of left libertarians wanted to use the liberty movement to promote values not shared by others. Following their human nature, they then wanted to make the tent too small to include socially conservative libertarians.

At the same time, others (on the right) insisted libertarianism was inclusive or “thin.” However, it’s fairly safe to say they preferred the company of those with culturally similar views despite political differences over fellow libertarians whose social goals were diametrically opposed.

The natural order dictates that humans associate by race/culture and religion before they will on the basis of politics.This is just how it works.

When people today identify as Republican or Democrat they aren’t just referring to their politics but also their stance on social and cultural values. Pro-choice and pro-gay marriage Republicans have to identify as such because Republicans are typically known for being pro-life and support state-run marriages between a man and a woman. And of course there are no pro-life or pro-“traditional marriage” Democrats. If you’re Democrat, you’re in favor of legalized abortion and letting two men obtain a state marriage license. Both are social issues.

This does not mean people will not associate with those who have similar political beliefs, but their priorities will be first and foremost other, non-political values. When these priorities collide, people who align politically will naturally segregate themselves accordingly.

Keep in mind that libertarianism initially managed to act like a movement because it was a small collection of highly like-minded individuals. When the average member thought and acted like Murray Rothbard and Ludwig Von Mises, you had a cohesive group unofficially united by common values apart from the “official” doctrine. This is why there was the split between Rothbard and the “respectable” libertarians who, ever since, have advocated the tired old trope of being “fiscally conservative, socially liberal.”

The phenomenon I described above played out in the aftermath of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign in 2007 and 2012 when the movement gained momentum and the number of self-described libertarians swelled. We didn’t see it happen immediately because the impacts were delayed.

Some newcomers like me bore close semblance to the lifestyles and attitudes of men like Tom Woods and Lew Rockwell. But others imported values antithetical to both socially conservative libertarians and a healthy, free society. They also held these values above libertarianism, so the movement became less about reducing the power of the state and move about combating racism (as defined by the Left) and promoting vice and sexual deviancy.

In reality, it was a (ultimately successful) coup by leftists to hijack the libertarian label and repackage it as an alternative lifestyle. What could have been a potent source of resistance to the state became a neo-hippie commune more interested in polyamory and the “liberation” of porn actresses than helping men escape state intrusion into their marriages. They’re totally uninterested in abolishing no-fault divorce, one of the worst acts of state intrusion in the Western world.

Libertarianism is a philosophy, but on its own it will never be a movement. Any “libertarian” movement claiming to be so will be “thick” in the sense that it will consist of tacit core values outside of the political. Or, they will be outright “thickists” and make it clear that those values are mandatory. The open letter written by leftists to Ron Paul was more or less a declaration of intent to do just that within the libertarian movement. Of course, libertarians can and do differentiate between what is moral and what is legal, but I’m talking about actual movements that involve strong, cohesive associations and alliances.

Libertarianism can never be a movement on its because it will fall victim to Sullivan’s Law: any entity that is not expressively right-wing will eventually turn left-wing.

This is why so many men like myself left the Liberty Movement. Its goals are no longer aligned with ours. The way of the future for libertarians looking to preserve Western culture is through modern barbarism and tribalism in order to build communities and bonds between like-minded individuals.

Photo credit: Wiki Commons.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Why Libertarianism Could Not and Will Not Ever Be a Real Movement

  1. So long as there is a breath of life left in this government, so long as there are men and women who cannot see or emphatically refuse to see the inherent evils of allowing a small group of people have access to the kinds of powers at their disposal in Washington, D.C.; so long as the inherent evils of men and women are left unquestioned, unchecked and left free to collude with corporate bankers and corporate CEO’s to further feed their insatiable greed, there will never be the possibility of freedom. The populace at large will always find themselves subservient to the egos and whims of the thirteen families who possess well over half the monies of the world and who do, in fact, own damned everyone and everything on this planet!

    So long as the so-called “common man” voluntarily surrenders his God-given rights and responsibilities to rule his own life, he will always be ruled by the very insidious and monstrously evil few. To turn over our individual responsibilities to police our own lives, to surrender our responsibilities to defend and personally protect ourselves, our families, our loved ones, our friends, our neighbors and the weak and defenseless, and our nation, is inexcusable and the worst kind of cowardice. They deserve what they inherit. Problem is, this irresponsible and mindless behavior drags the very young to their very early graves…

    To engage in arguing or discussing the “merits” of the “Left” or the “Right” or the Libertarian movements is moot. It is sheer and unadulterated nonsense and an unmitigated waste of time, one’s energy and resources and, most importantly, one’s freedom. There are no lefts or rights or libertarian (whatever the hell that means!). They were cleverly designed to keep people separated and at each other’s throats within the framework of an institution, government, who has everything to gain from such pugilism, where there can be no winners, save one, G-O-V-E-R-N-M-E-N-T!!!

    Ayn Rand once asked the question, “who will protect us from our protectors?” WAKE UP!!!

    Bill Ernstberger

    Like

  2. GREG NIKOLIC says:

    The core values of libertarianism were corruptible because there was no standard text to which all parties could reference. As a counter-example, see Communism’s _Communist Manifeso_ and the textbook-like _Das Kapital_, which provided a grounding for the movement.

    The Alt-Right in general is sustained by negativity and is reactionist against an ongoing liberal tyranny — therefore its emotions fuel it so long as there is a tyranny in place admitting vast numbers of nonwhites and encouraging progressive values everywhere. But remove that door stopper, and the door flies open and everyone falls in . . . and it goes the way of libertarianism.

    Like

    • The Question says:

      The core values of libertarianism were corruptible because there was no standard text to which all parties could reference. As a counter-example, see Communism’s _Communist Manifeso_ and the textbook-like _Das Kapital_, which provided a grounding for the movement.

      There is merit to this claim, but we need to keep in mind that communism and Marxism provide a complete moral theory. Communism is not just an economic system. Karl Marx also had prescriptions for religion, culture, family, society, etc.

      That is what gives these movements their potency and strength. They are in full accord in these wide range of issues, whereas libertarians are united only on a handful. This makes it easier to divide those who already have plenty of disagreements.

      Like

  3. When I sit on the toilet to do my business that, too, is a “movement.” I certainly would not want to, however, remotely entertain the notion of including this in any kind of discussion, particularly when postulating it as significant in anyone’s life other than, obviously, the person sitting on the toilet…

    Again, it really doesn’t make a bit of sense to go to others for theories, guidance, suggestions, opinions, “moral theories,” or “standard texts” upon which to live one’s life. Thomas Payne, in one of his books, declared that Jesus Christ is Satan himself. Thomas Jefferson declared that “all men are created equal” while “owning” over six hundred (600+) SLAVES!!! George Washington was once quoted as saying that he enjoyed “the exhilaration of being shot at!” So much for others opinions as a lodestar…

    Here’s a novel idea: why not encourage each other to make decisions for themselves, either individually or collectively, while at the same time, banning together for support and as a sounding board? After all, these are the people who stand to gain or lose from such decisions, not some scum-sucking politician. Watching each other’s backs is far less dangerous than adding the likes of those who only see you as a stepping-stone.

    One last thought. Rather than depend on the opinions of others taken from the same lump of clay, why not go to the potter Himself and get His ideas from the Holy Scriptures?

    Bill Ernstberger

    Like

    • The Question says:

      Here’s a novel idea: why not encourage each other to make decisions for themselves, either individually or collectively, while at the same time, banning together for support and as a sounding board?

      People can certainly do that, but they still have to agree politically. When the politics affect their cultural values differently, they get divided. An example of this is the Supreme Court decision mandating same-sex marriage for all 50 states. Left libertarians saw this as a blow for freedom while others viewed it – correctly – as a blatant power grab by the feds in an effort to force a moral belief onto others.

      Thomas Payne, in one of his books, declared that Jesus Christ is Satan himself.

      I would point out Paine’s religious views came out after, not before, the War of Independence. In Common Sense he was very careful about his statements on Christianity. Again, he knew cultural values trumped politics.

      One last thought. Rather than depend on the opinions of others taken from the same lump of clay, why not go to the potter Himself and get His ideas from the Holy Scriptures?

      That is the direction I have taken and continue to take. But there are libertarians who view religion like Marx did, as a societal ill just as dangerous as government or even another form of it. Such people and I may agree to leave each alone and we may work together in a limited capacity, but there will be no movement led by such people with diametrically opposed beliefs.

      Like

  4. Pingback: Hipster Libertarianism | The Anarchist Notebook

  5. Pingback: A Libertarian Take On The 16 Points Of The Alt. Right | The Anarchist Notebook

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s