He first points out a very undeniable fact: Attempting to trace the “original” legitimate property owners of any given piece of land is futile (bold emphasis added):
The reality of life this side of the Garden of Eden is that rights inevitably conflict and can only be resolved with violence or threats thereof. The current distribution of property rights is such that everything we own and enjoy is ours because our ancestors seized it from weaker peoples by force. Tracing the ownership of any piece of land or tangible piece of property (or its component parts) to its source inevitably leads us to some point at which someone used violence or threats thereof to acquire and maintain possession of said property. You come from a long line of primates who survived because their baboon mindframe gave them a leg up on the neanderthal version of our contemporary numales, not because their property and posterity (us) was protected by some abstract concept of natural rights. Indeed, the very existence of natural rights depends upon the ability of a people to defend them—with violence, if necessary.
Having said that, we should not confuse land or property with wealth creation. Traditionally, empires arose from stronger nations conquering others and looting them. With the free market and modern economies, wealth could be created rather than taken.
Americans certainly seized some of the land from the native peoples living on the continent either by treaty or conquest, but the nation itself that exists today in the form of the infrastructure and institutions definitely were not stolen. It is safe to say had Americans or the initial explorers never settled the land, the nation as we know it would not be here, as the native people would not have had access to the horse or the wheel.
If I remove a man from his unused lot and build a mansion on top of it, it would not be correct for him to claim I stole his mansion from him. He could certainly demand the land back, but he has no right to the building sitting on it.
In a very real and literal sense, might makes right. Perhaps not moral right in some metaphysical sense, but legal rights are certainly acquired and maintained by might.
Agreed. I’ve made a similar assertion. There is no point in being right if you are not also might. This does not contradict libertarianism or the Non-Aggression Principle. It merely bothers libertarians who find the very notion of violence itself to be verboten because they are thoroughly emasculated.
then gets at the thesis of his piece (bold emphasis added):
Libertarianism is a special form of slave morality insofar as it rejects the use of superior ability in one field of endeavor (military conquest) while glorifying another (shekel-grubbing). It’s unsurprising, then, that we find so many Jewish intellectuals at the forefront of this movement. (See: Mises, Rothbard, Rand, Friedman, Block, et al.) In the same way, every other race tends to promote worldviews that plays toward their own comparative advantages. (Except for whites, who, thanks to our unique evolutionary past, stubbornly stick to a unilateral, pathological altruism that has put us at risk of becoming a minority in our own countries.) Nonetheless, I maintain that libertarianism is superior to other forms of slave morality, insofar as it maintains some form of meritocracy, thereby placing a hard and fast limit on the cuckoldy and dysgenics inherent in slave morality.
For the sake of brevity, I’m going to ignore the “Jewish Question” assertion, along with yet another attempt to lump Ayn Rand’s idiosyncratic Objectivism in with people such as Murray Rothbard.
Libertarianism rejects the use of aggression or coercion on moral grounds, not practicality or pragmatism. I’d be hard pressed to find anyone who would claim that someone else has the “right” so to speak to steal their property or kill them.
The problem is, people see the Non-Aggression Principle as a suicide or pacifist pact, except there is a reason why sociopaths and narcissists hate libertarianism. It is a two-way street and enables the libertarian as much as it restrains them.
Libertarianism has been described as an advanced form of a gentleman’s agreement, and I think this perspective has some merit in the sense that parties involved need to agree on it for it to have political relevance.
But this ignores the purpose of the philosophy. It is not to say what should be; it also explains what is.That coercion and aggression are illegitimate does not negate the reality that they were the primary means of living for millennia, but it does help us comprehend human action. If we do not accept that all politics is violence then we will never understand why people behave as they do within the realm of the political system.
Nevertheless, I can be a libertarian and still kill someone trying to harm me. I can use force to prevent a person from stealing my property. Nothing about the NAP prevents me from protecting what is mine. What it does is proscribe taking what is not mine and harming someone without just cause.
The confusion arises over what constitutes a person’s legitimate property and when a violent act is just. This is where misinterpretation of libertarianism by both adherents, non-adherents, and infiltrators come into play.
I developed the concept of libertarian barbarism as a way to counter attempts by fifth columnists to manipulate people into acting against their own interests under the guise of intellectual and philosophical purity. If something violates my rights, I am justified in opposing it. I am not required to explain anything beyond that. It is incumbent upon the person recommending the policy to elucidate why I should embrace it or why it does not violate my rights.
In conclusion, the alt-right are the real laissez-faire because we believe in letting the natural order assert itself without injecting futile utopian schemes of social engineering.
So does libertarianism, hence the Non-Aggression Principle. Nothing says natural order like the principle of self-ownership and prohibition of coercion to maintain unsustainable social orders.
That is why the Left hates libertarianism and wishes to transform it into a coffee house conversational group or a hippie commune full of potheads and sexual degenerates. Their vision for society cannot be fulfilled without the coercion and aggression of the state because only through the state can they engage in perpetual revolution.
The Right does not need the state, because whether good or bad, their values adhere to the natural order.
Libertarianism only enslaves us by requiring political consistency in how we handle social, ethical, moral, religious, and political matters – something which any philosophy that seeks to be taken seriously must at least attempt to do. Other than that, it does nothing but unshackle us as individuals from the chains of political lies. It liberates us from accepting moral culpability for what our governments past, present, and future do in our name yet against our consent. It frees us from the notion that the government is the extension of our wills and to oppose it is to oppose ourselves. It releases us from the invisible confines of acceptable thoughts and actions as befitting our government-defined groups and opens up the possibility of establishing our own identities.
To quote Bob Marley, libertarianism emancipates our hearts from mental slavery. In the same sense, it emancipates us from any slave morality, too.