I’m discussing this in my upcoming ebook (God knows when I’ll finish it) but a recent spat within the “liberty movement” compelled me to bring it up here first.
When a person begins their journey as a libertarian and internalizing the truths found within the philosophy, they go through various stages:
- Resistance –They respond to libertarianism with outrage, sarcasm, snark, and incredulity. “This can’t be true! How ridiculous to think we shouldn’t have government running everything! Without the state who would build the roads? What kind of idiot thinks like this?”
- Epiphany – They can’t deny the truth about the state any longer. Their attempts to refute the reasoning behind statements such as “taxation is theft” go nowhere. Suddenly everything they had sensed before about politics but couldn’t articulate becomes viscerally self-evident. It is as though an enormous veil has been removed from their eyes.
- Resentment– The full breadth of state intervention and violence in the world around them is revealed. The revelation leaves them bitter. “How could I have been lied to my whole life? What else have I been lied to about? My entire childhood education was based on falsehoods! How could they do this to us?”
- Idealism – After anger, they try to make up for their former beliefs by adopting hyper-enthusiasm. This stage is particularly lengthy among younger libertarians because they’re more easily prone to naiveté. “It’s ok, we can’t abolish the state in the near future. A stateless society is just around the corner. All we need to do is educate enough people, get enough activism going. Let’s distribute some pocket Constitutions, hold a protest rally, maybe start a blog or a podcast. That’ll show people we mean business!”
- Realism– The lessons from history and the political reality they see day to day gradually demolish the rationalizations behind their unfounded hopes. “We won’t ever abolish the state. We can’t even get the nomination for president. People say they want to be free, but they don’t vote that way. They aren’t machines. Logic, reason, and evidence may convince some, but people are primarily motivated by incentives. No matter how many times we’re proven right, people will not believe us. We can’t sit around and wait for the world to change. We must focus on changing our own lives.”
I have reached the fifth stage a while back.
What convinced me?
A lot of things. Like the number of libertarians who have their heads stuck in the sand.
During a recent debate, Trump told Clinton that if he were president and enforced federal laws “you’d be in jail.”
Now, people who heard this responded in two ways; cheers/amusement, or horror. The way people reacted will determine which side they’ll be on if and when there is a civil war.
The correct answer is cheers; it is the greatest thing he has ever said. Up until this point I had had no temptation to vote for him. The possibility he might have her indicted, tried, convicted and sentenced changed that for a temporary moment.
If you fall into the second category and were horrified, frankly you’re part of the problem.
To my shock, a lot of libertarians selected the “horror” option, including Jeffrey Tucker. On an apparent hell-bent mission to burn all bridges with normal libertarian figures, he took Julie Borowski to task for saying that Trump’s line was the best of the debate.
“Because violent revenge fantasies, jailers, wardens, and cruel cages are not the way of liberty. I’m sad that I have to point that out,” he wrote.
Tucker, it’s sad that I have to point this out, but it’s statements like that which aptly demonstrate why libertarians like yourself have been absolutely impotent in their efforts to reduce the state through your “way of liberty” and why the state is not going anywhere anytime soon, or ever.
Clinton is without question the most corrupt politician in the history of the United States of America. Putting aside the enormous Wikileaks dumps that occur on a semi-daily basis, the FBI director came out in front of God and everybody and said she had broken the law but they would not prosecute her because we are ruled by a Third World-style junta.
That Trump’s desire to have her locked behind bars should horror someone who believes all government is illegitimate and taxation is theft and war is murder, more than the fact that our illegitimate rulers can brazenly speak of violating their won laws without consequence, shows the extent to which people – libertarians above all – will strain the gnat but swallow the camel.
Just consider the following:
- The Republican nominee is a New York liberal but has vowed to bring justice to a corrupt thug like Clinton who has gotten away with murder (literally) for years; he has managed to evoke the ire and rage of every Establishment organization and entity in our empire
- Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson, supposedly representing an anti-state, pro-freedom platform, described Clinton as a “wonderful public servant” on national television.
This is why normal heterosexual men jumped the libertarian ship and joined the Alt. Right. For all its faults, it’s not an emasculated movement. It has balls, it has teeth. They are willing to fight against our enemies. And they have inflicted casualties.
They’re fighting the fight libertarians should be, but aren’t and won’t because they don’t like the paradigm. It’s not liberal versus conservative. It’s not prostate versus anti-state. It’s pro-Western Civilization nationalism versus anti-Western globalism. However, our enemies are clearly and unmistakably on one side.
Libertarians have reduced themselves to a collection of coffee house conversationalists who love discussing theories and hypothetical. They come up with complicated, complex arrangements by which we can privatize everything- all while the state grows larger by the day. However, when it comes to actually doing something to reduce the state in a sizable or applicable manner, they squirm and fret about remaining ideologically pure because if they happen to violate the NAP they won’t get into their stateless heaven.
I can’t help but also observe a lot of libertarians tend to have a constitutional incapacity to discern between the options they’d like to have versus the options actually available. There is no purely libertarian approach to any of this. Our options are heavily limited. Libertarians have also failed to provide a plausible alternative to what’s presented to the average American.
I’m obviously not arguing you need to support a presidential candidate. I’m saying you need to have your priorities right and have something to offer. I’ve done this the best way I can by prescribing tribalism and neo-barbarism.
Our country is on the brink of a civil war, and yet some libertarians think it is worthwhile to engage in worthless thought policing and in-house fighting over what any normal person would consider to be a relatively moderate reaction to the possibility of seeing a war criminal get their due.
These people would have shed tears when Mussolini was killed and hung by an Italian mob and wailed about due process.
Where your empathy is first found is where your heart is, also.
Frankly I’m beginning to suspect that a lot of “liberty lovers” really don’t want things to change. They don’t want the state to go anywhere. Fighting the state is their religion, adhering to the NAP through passivity is their doctrine. It is all about being “right” and virtue signaling to our enemies that we’re more righteous than they are.
The concept of might – or winning through superior strength – terrifies them because they’re emasculated and effeminate.
If the state goes away, what else do they have to live for? It helps distract them from other problems in their life.
It’s similar to the conservatives; they really don’t want to win because then they have to figure out what to do from there.
This explains why movements such as the Free State Project in New Hampshire kicked out Chris Cantwell a few years back after he made the rather “duh” observation that violent revolution is justified. While he has wisely argued for a culture of resistance to the state, I continue to come across one libertarian after another who think a free society will just occur without any violence whatsoever or shriek at the idea that we do anything other than bitch about it online and make funny Facebook memes.
This is just as deranged as the belief that a boy chopping off his penis and putting on a dress makes him a biological female.
Honestly, any libertarian who balks at the notion of using violence in any capacity, or is unsettled by the signs of genuine strength and power from another libertarian willing to resist state aggression, has shown their cards.
The reason the state is never going away is because the people who claim to oppose it, despise it, and hate it the most, are the most hopeless in making it a reality; they will waste their time and energy fighting over moot issues as though they had all the time in the world to figure it out. For some reason I haven’t quite figured out, the movement will always attract autoimmune types more interested in policing thoughts and actions within the group like a militant Catholic nun in a classroom than achieving any meaningful political change.
Meanwhile, the real battle for Western Civilization will be waged and – God willing – won by those whose ideologies may be flawed or imperfect, but they’ll succeed because they aren’t constrained by chickenshit regulations of their behavior and actions. They know there’s no point in being right if you don’t win.
If libertarians are going to obsess over whether someone such as Clinton getting chucked in jail (or out of a helicopter) is a violation of due process or a “revenge fantasy” that should be opposed, than we should be intellectually honest and stop talking about enacting a stateless society sometime in the distant future because it is never, ever going to happen. It’s a game of soccer, and we’re obsessed with our team following the rules while our opponents run with the ball in their hands, are offsides the entire game, and commit unrestrained technical fouls.
If the state is ever reduced, it will because of its own self-destructive policies and failed economic schemes. I pray to God that is how it will come to pass, but while the Soviet Union fell apart peacefully, I have hardly any hope left the same will occur in a country as dysfunctional in every way imaginable as the United States.
Having said all I have to say on the matter, I’m going to put this topic to rest. If someone comes across it and disagrees, please point me to your 483 bullet point plan to abolish the state and how you intend to carry it out (and without anyone dying).
If you accomplish it, I’ll certainly know.