A Libertarian Take On The 16 Points Of The Alt. Right

A Libertarian Take On The 16 Points Of The Alt. Right

(Update: Vox Day has graciously replied to my analysis.)

In libertarian circles, I sense the discussion over the Alt. Right has reached a high point. Instigating this conversation perhaps was National Policy Institute Head Richard Spencer’s appearance near or at the International Students for Liberty Conference a week or so ago.

Frankly, I’m concerned by the growing anti-intellectualism and lack of research by a lot of libertarians regarding the beliefs of the Alt. Right. Many of them, I sense, have not taken so much as an hour reading a single Alt. Right essay or listening to an Alt. Right speech. I hear all sorts of insults thrown toward men such as Spencer and others, but I have been thoroughly unimpressed by the critiques, if any, made of what they say or believe.

The movement has been around long enough and is diverse enough to warrant better descriptions than “white supremacists” and “Neo-Nazis.”

To that end, I wanted to explore the 16 Points Of The Alt. Right as written by Vox Day. My hope is that even if libertarians do not agree with them, at the very least they understand what their core beliefs are. I appreciate the fact that the Alt. Right has a somewhat vague definition, but it would be hard to deny the influence Vox Day has in defining and shaping it.

My analysis is in bold italics.

A Libertarian Analysis Of The 16 Points of The Alt. Right

  1. The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right.

So far, so good. Nothing wrong with this.

  1. The Alt Right is an ALTERNATIVE to the mainstream conservative movement in the USA that is nominally encapsulated by Russel Kirk’s 10 Conservative Principles, but in reality has devolved towards progressivism. It is also an alternative to libertarianism.

The question is, in what ways is it an alternative to libertarianism? Unlike the Alternative Right, libertarianism pertains to a narrowly defined scope of politics; the use of force. Outside of that, it has no prescribed moral, ethical, spiritual, religious, or cultural beliefs. Libertarianism by itself is not a complete moral theory, yet it also does not claim to be one.

  1. The Alt Right is not a defensive attitude and rejects the concept of noble and principled defeat. It is a forward-thinking philosophy of offense, in every sense of that term. The Alt Right believes in victory through persistence and remaining in harmony with science, reality, cultural tradition, and the lessons of history.

The first part is fine. The second part is a bit subjective, but the concept itself is a sound one. As long as your interpretation of reality, cultural tradition, and lessons of history are accurate.

  1. The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy.

Libertarians can disagree or agree with this, but this has nothing to do with libertarianism, per se. It is a description, not prescription.

  1. 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.

The fundamental question to be asked is what does nationalism look like when implemented? Is it carried out peacefully or, if done violently, in the face of unjust coercion and aggression by enemies?

The answer matters, because if nationalism is in accordance with the natural order, then it will not require the state to enforce it; it would only require the state get out of the way and let people voluntarily form a homogeneous nation. There is nothing wrong with violently resisting state efforts to undermine voluntary nationalism or the formation of a nation. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with violently opposing unjust efforts by people attempting to carry out a nationalist policy against peaceful people or create an artificial nation.

As long as nationalism is descriptive (this is how it is), and not prescriptive (this is how it must be no matter what), then it does not violate libertarianism.

I also insist that whoever condemns the Alt. Right for nationalism remain consistent by condemning all forms of nationalism. This means any person of any ethnic group in any part of the world wishing to preserve their nation or national identity is inherently unlibertarian – of course, I would demand to know why that is the case.

Additionally, this would logically dictate that multiculturalism is the natural state of human relations and the de facto libertarian stance. Any homgenuous nation would be considered an unfree society.  If it is unlibertarian to promote a national identity and form a nation, the two pillars of nationalism, then people must exist within a multi-ethnic, multi-national environment. There is simply no escaping this conclusion.

  1. The Alt Right is anti-globalist. It opposes all groups who work for globalist ideals or globalist objectives.

Agreed, assuming this refers to globalism as a political concept, i.e. world government and centralization of political authority. Other forms of globalism that are the natural result of modern technology and voluntary human action are another matter. One could split hairs over Vox Day’s definition, but I feel no need to do so. The globalists he refers to are obviously not libertarians or pro-freedom.

  1. The Alt Right is anti-equalitarian. It rejects the idea of equality for the same reason it rejects the ideas of unicorns and leprechauns, noting that human equality does not exist in any observable scientific, legal, material, intellectual, sexual, or spiritual form.

One hundred percent agree. Egalitarianism is a revolt against nature.

  1. The Alt Right is scientodific. It presumptively accepts the current conclusions of the scientific method (scientody), while understanding a) these conclusions are liable to future revision, b) that scientistry is susceptible to corruption, and c) that the so-called scientific consensus is not based on scientody, but democracy, and is therefore intrinsically unscientific.

This point is outside the purview of libertarian philosophy. Because of that, I feel no need to comment on it.

  1. The Alt Right believes identity > culture > politics.

This is merely pointing out reality: race and culture matter. People associate with others based on preferences. Politics are one of them, but it is at the bottom tier compared to language, ethnicity, culture, and religion. It is why the libertarian movement could never be a real movement. It lacks these primary values.

  1. The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.

Non-interventionism, anti-imperialism, anti-war. Nothing to complain about here, unless you’re Jeffrey Tucker and think the Deep State hellbent on a war with Russia is preferable to “Neo-Nazis” who want to avoid further empire-building exercises.

  1. The Alt Right understands that diversity + proximity = war.

 It also equals censorship.

  1. The Alt Right doesn’t care what you think of it.

No point in commenting on this one.

  1. The Alt Right rejects international free trade and the free movement of peoples that free trade requires. The benefits of intranational free trade is not evidence for the benefits of international free trade.

Here is perhaps the greatest area of contention between libertarians and Alt. Right leaders such as Vox Day. He recently had a debate with Bob Murphy, hosted on Tom Woods’ show. To be entirely frank, I am not totally convinced either way. I obviously support the concept of free trade, but I do not believe libertarians or Austrian economists have sufficiently addressed some of the problems Vox Day has observed – if so, I haven’t come across them, yet.

I would add that nations can and have survived harmful protectionist trade policies. Other political stances such as open borders are far more destructive (see Germanic Migration). I’ll take a country with a protectionist trade policy but with secure borders over a country that has open trade and open borders – which also happens to be the policy of Hillary Clinton.

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

Anyone who thinks this is racist, is racist. If you oppose this, then you must logically oppose white men proactively promoting the continuation of their own race through procreation and their opposition to state-imposed policies openly intended to achieve their race’s demographic decline and dispossession. Libertarians do not need to champion this cause, but it is absurd to think they are forbidden from doing so because of the Non-Aggression Principle.

  1. The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.

Please read the first sentence. Done? Do it again. And again, this time slowly. Now tell me how the Alt. Right is founded on the idea of white supremacy.

  1. The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.

Once more, please explain how any of this is white supremacy or hateful. It’s only hateful if you believe that whites should be held to separate moral and ethical standards than every other race or ethnic group. Of course, if you believe that, wouldn’t that imply white supremacy?

So, aside from free trade and perhaps some elements of nationalism, much of what comprises the Alt. Right ideology is outside of libertarianism; it neither contradicts it nor agrees with it. The goals of the Alt. Right are not mutually exclusive of those in libertarianism.

Whatever the case, I see many similar values between the two movements. The areas of disagreement, in my opinion, are secondary and not fundamental components. There is room for friendly dispute.

It is my sincere hope that both sides can engage in thoughtful conversations and work together when mutually beneficial against common enemies. Whether anyone cares to admit it or not, it has become self-evident that the Alt. Right, whatever its flaws, is trying to preserve the only kind of civilization in which libertarianism can exist at all.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Central Government, cultural marxism, Culture, Immigration, libertarianism, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to A Libertarian Take On The 16 Points Of The Alt. Right

  1. Abelard Lindsey says:

    As a libertarian myself, I agree with this critique of the alt-right.

    Like

  2. Samuel Nock says:

    On point 5:

    Nations predate states. I.e. the use of force was almost certainly used in the creation of homogeneous peoples in the first instance: They either violently separate, were kept out, or fled. That’s how races (.e. nations) were created. Thus, nations do appear to be of the natural order. Steve Sailer, I believe, repeatedly notes that two subspecies (e.g. red and gray squirrels) cannot occupy the same territory without the extermination of one or the other. (Don’t mess with an angry squirrel…) Or, as Vox Day, asks in his inimitable NFG-style: “How do you think races were created in the first place!?!”

    On point 13:

    There is a lot more to the anti-free trade case. I would refer to Vox Day’s debate with James Miller, which was subsequently published as On the Question of Free Trade. See also the appendix in Cuckservative that reprints Greg Johnson’s interview of Vox Day, in which they discuss this question at length, and reference some of the other relevant literature, including Ian Fletcher’s book “Free Trade Doesn’t Work”. There is also Ha-joon Chang’s “Bad Samaritans”, as well as William Shearer’s book “The Conservative Case Against Free Trade.”

    Like

    • The Question says:

      The real question is which policy promotes the greatest peace between different peoples? Nations are certainly created violently, but they are far more natural and more likely to ensure relative peace than the artificially created countries that we have today where people have to be forced to associate.

      It bothers me that some libertarians think nation-states are the worst conceivable form of governance when the alternative is a quasi-Deep State global government.

      Like

  3. SomeOtherGuy says:

    That is basically a propagand piece for the alt right, espousing all their ‘reasonable’ beliefs.

    Any in depth conversation with the alt right quickly moves on to ethnic cleansing, suppressing opposing views, gassing jews (because everything is the fault of the jews). When voxday is in a group of his own people he freely expresses those opinions.

    Libertarians would do well to remain vigilant against what this represents. I have spent a lot of time in discussion with members of the alt right including voxday. According to them, drug users are degenerates, crossdressers, homosexuals and transsexuals are mentally ill, porn is immoral and should be banned. They are as antifreedom as the SJW’s or islamic extremists. If you oppose ‘traditional christian’ values they’ll call you a communist, just like SJWs will call you a racist for opposing affirmative action. They are 100% collectivists who believe individual liberty must be sacrificed for the good of the ‘white race’.

    They are pretty much as anti-libertarian as possible and have absolutely no respect for us at all. At best we are ‘useful idiots’ to them.

    Like

  4. cynicinchief says:

    An excellent post. As a big-L Libertarian turned Alt-Righter, part of the journey was realizing that apart from a few points of contention (international free trade and open immigration), the Alt-Right is actually a superset of Libertarianism. It covers culture, the importance of religion, racial relations, and other topics that are outside the scope of Libertarianism. A Minarchist state can only exist within a cultural and social framework like that the Alt-Right promotes and aggressively defends. Add in how easily both the traditional conservatives and Libertarian party let the Statist Left walk all over them and you can see why so many right-Libertarians have gone to the Alt-Right.

    I believe that in the next few years we will see the schizm that started last year divide the Libertarian party. The right-leaning Libertarians will go Alt-Right as the desire to defend their freedoms clashes with the increased hysterics from the left. The left-leaning Libertarians will have to deal with incoming Bernie-supporting leftists who have left the Democratic party seeking another home and attempt to focus the party on Social Justice in expense of social freedoms.

    Like

    • The Question says:

      he right-leaning Libertarians will go Alt-Right as the desire to defend their freedoms clashes with the increased hysterics from the left. The left-leaning Libertarians will have to deal with incoming Bernie-supporting leftists who have left the Democratic party seeking another home and attempt to focus the party on Social Justice in expense of social freedoms.

      Thanks for the feedback, and I agree. And like Vox Day said, it is something I say with regret.

      Like

  5. SHL says:

    I have some serious issues with the 16 points, and I believe not only they are contradictory with Libertarianism but are also inherently self-contradictory. My critique revolves around points 14, 15 and 12.

    So, for that point 14. Your literal reading of it misses the point entirely. Of course no one who isn’t an anti-white racist should have a problem with the existence of white people and a future for white children. Both you and Vox have made the rhetorical point before that people who object to these words are racist. But the problem is not the LITERAL meaning of these words, but their SYMBOLIC meaning.

    Those are “The 14 words” almost verbatim, and Vox made a point to keep them as 14 words (After the “The Alt right believes” preamble) AND to place them at point 14. The 14 words were created by David Lane of the Order, an undeniably White Supremacist organization. Along with his 88 precepts they create the infamous “1488” moniker which is used by modern Neo-Nazis to describe themselves. Go and do your reading about that man and that organization and then repeat what you said about point 14.

    Vox could have made the same message using different words, or different number of words, or placed them anywhere on his manifesto but point 14. The fact that he made the effort to do it like this means he very much cared about their symbolic message – the message that tells those 1488ers “Don’t worry about all that other stuff, we are with you, we believe what you believe”.

    Now, if you do not see a contradiction with Libertarianism here, I don’t know what to tell you. This of course stands in a cynical contradiction with point 15. You can call Vox many things, but one thing he is not is stupid. There is no possibility this wasn’t done intentionally, and the only way he could have been more cynical was if he spaced the points using swastikas, and then argued anyone who has a problem with it is biased against 90-degree angles.

    And of course, this all brings us to point 12. The fact that Vox did this – used a symbolically encoded message on point 14, then contradicted its symbolic (AGAIN – not its literal !) meaning on point 15, means that the Alt-right (or at least Vox’s version of it) does care what people think of it, very much. It “cares” in two directions – it cares for the racists on to keep seeing themselves as a part of it, and it cares for Libertarians, civic nationalists, etc, to ALSO keep seeing themselves as a part of it too, or at least aligned with it, while turning a blind eye to the racists.

    Like

    • Grace says:

      SHL, sorry but you sound like more of a numerologist than a libertarian…

      Like

      • SHL says:

        I do not have a mystical bone in my body, but the point is 1488ers do (read up on Wotanism). You don’t need to take my word for it – simply read the responses to Vox’s original 16 points article and you’ll understand to whom exactly is point 14 addressed to.

        Like

    • John Morris says:

      I think you are also missing an important point Vox had in creating that list. No individual Alt-Righter typically agrees with all sixteen points and isn’t intended to. It is a list of concepts that define the Alt-Right in general. Are there 1488 types moving in the Alt-Right space? Yes. Are there a lot of others? Yes. You don’t have to agree with point 14 to be Alt-Right.

      If you agree with a majority of the points you should probably consider yourself Alt-Right. But it is a veritable certainty that you will quickly find yourself interacting with others on the Alt-Right who agree with a very different majority of the points. Learning to cope with that is a big part of the transition from Conservative or Libertarian because both movements do extensive purity policing. No Enemies on the Right is our motto. The Alt-Right does not care. We doesn’t care what the Left thinks, we do not care what the Right thinks of us, we dont even care what the various Alt-Right factions think. So long as they aren’t shooting at me, and are shooting at the common enemy they are OK even if a bit daft.

      Like

  6. The Question says:

    “Both you and Vox have made the rhetorical point before that people who object to these words are racist. But the problem is not the LITERAL meaning of these words, but their SYMBOLIC meaning.”

    The average person has absolutely no idea who invented that phrase and don’t care what his intent was or his prescription for how to carry it out. They’re opposed to the literal meaning of the message. Period. End of story.

    Don’t believe me? Try asking libertarians about how someone can use the philosophy to increase the white population in America and see the response you get – before they ban you or label you “Literally Hitler.”

    The entire Western narrative is that whites need to die off and be displaced.

    Courtesy of the NYT: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/18/opinion/sunday/breaking-the-anti-immigrant-fever.html

    “Where could the demonizing and dehumanizing of the foreign born lead but to a whiter America?”

    The demographic decline and removal of my race in the West is codified as part of Western society, culture, and the political system. It is done openly, avowedly, and proudly, and yet you’re lecturing me about using a phrase that has subtext to it that I clearly reject.

    That’s why Vox Day chose that line, and why I don’t care who invented it. We’re sick of the moral double standards.

    Like

  7. Aphelion says:

    Someotherguy is wrong about Vox Day. Vox is the editor and publisher of brilliant, liberal, Jewish historian and strategist Martin van Creveld. Vox explicitly supports the right of Israel to exist as a homeland for the Jews and is not looking to “gas the Jews” as you so dishonestly claim. I read Van Creveld in college and now 30 years later I read his books published by Vox. I have only been reading Vox for half that time, but that is sufficient to understand him too.

    Like

    • The Question says:

      I’ve offered him space to provide a link or source to back up his claims. He has not replied since.

      It’s the same thing I’ve received from others when I bring up the legitimate points of the Alt. Right. They cannot actually address the issues at hand, so they engage in character assassination.

      That time is coming to an end.

      Like

    • SomeOtherGuy says:

      I read his social media posts, not his propaganda page (and yes reposting one of your followers opinions is an endorsement). Shouldn’t be hard for you to find. And as for his articles heres an extract that took me literally under 30 seconds to find:

      “the Alt-Right is perfectly willing to crush individual liberties if that is necessary to preserve Western civilization and the European nations. And that is something that libertarians are going to have to accept”

      i.e. Hes our exact opposite. Too stupid to realise that individual liberties is what made western civilisation.

      Like

      • The Question says:

        i.e. Hes our exact opposite. Too stupid to realise that individual liberties is what made western civilisation.

        The Alt. Right is trying to preserve the West, which is currently being destroyed by globalists.

        Without the West, there is no liberty, and no libertarian movement.

        It shouldn’t be that hard to get.

        Like

  8. Good stuff! Strongly approve 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Daniel Davis says:

    “I also insist that whoever condemns the Alt. Right for nationalism remain consistent by condemning all forms of nationalism. This means any person of any ethnic group in any part of the world wishing to preserve their nation or national identity is inherently unlibertarian – of course, I would demand to know why that is the case.”

    I think this is the money shot, particularly with respect to the cognitive dissonance of most people, including “libertarians”, shrieking about the Alt-Right.

    Strangely enough, the white nationalism of the Alt-Right is just asserting what is seen as the bedrock principle of modern international law – self determination of peoples.

    “Self determination of peoples, for Whitey too”.

    Why is “self determination of peoples” evil when Whitey does it? Besides “Whitey is the Devil”, I don’t think there is an answer.

    Like

    • The Question says:

      Strangely enough, the white nationalism of the Alt-Right is just asserting what is seen as the bedrock principle of modern international law – self determination of peoples.

      “Self determination of peoples, for Whitey too”.

      Why is “self determination of peoples” evil when Whitey does it? Besides “Whitey is the Devil”, I don’t think there is an answer.

      I think there is an answer, and ironically it’s the opposite of your theory: Those who condemn white supremacy believe in it the most. Why else hold whites to standards you don’t hold other groups to, unless you think they’re better? They want to create racial sameness, but in order to do that, in their minds, you have to hold whites to higher standards to get the same results.

      You and I are simply pointing out the discrepancy.

      Like

  10. SomeOtherGuy says:

    Exact example: (assume you know the symbol (((whatever))) refers to ‘teh jews’)

    “Yes. And so is virtually everyone else, except perhaps for a few (((Nazis))).”

    i.e. He’s saying in alt-right speak jews aren’t one of us.

    He’s a retrograde racist misogynist (to all women not just anti-feminazi). Can’t wait to see the reaction to his beached whale comment.

    “The corporate office is the modern equivalent of the medieval nunnery: it is a place to stash unmarriageable women who will never have children or contribute to society and keep them occupied with irrelevant make-work until they die.” , because women in the workplace have never contributed anything to society according to voxday *facepalm*

    Brilliant standard bearer you’ve chosen. Your movement will thrive through the generations without containing any women.

    Oh yeah, he opposes legislative propositions, but “no he’s not a Nazi”.

    And racism, he reposted: “All Men are created Equal – in a document written by Englishmen to emphasize the equality of the American Englishmen to the English Englishmen.” “mud people”

    And hey lets dox our opponents cause we only scream MUH CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS when it suits us: “Here Are The Full Names, Addresses, DOBs & Arrest Reports Of The 223 People Charged With Felony Rioting In DC ”

    And lets add some moronic hypocrisy just to finish off the tale of this pathetic excuse for a man:
    “Why voxday says no interviews with the enemy? They’ll do anything to win. ”
    preceded by: “they certainly don’t “take on” the #AltRight. They run and hide from us.”

    Seriously? What a coward.

    So we’ve covered racism, anti-semitism, misogyny, fascism, cowardice, hypocrisy …and I’ve had enough of trawling through his idiotic self-effacing delusional crap. If you haven’t got the picture by now, you’re a wilful idiot beyond redemption.

    Like

  11. HamOnRye says:

    I think you it would serve you well to ask the question why has Libertarians taken on such an anti-intellectual bent, and resorted to slinging insults.

    I can’t speak for everyone who took the route of long time libertarian to Alt-right, but for myself the infiltration of SJWs in the libertarians is what finally pushed me from one camp to the other.

    Take a quick review of some of the comments here shows a extremely high overlap of comments coming from say the Anti-GamerGate crowd. I don’t think that is merely coincidence.

    Like

    • The Question says:

      I can’t speak for everyone who took the route of long time libertarian to Alt-right, but for myself the infiltration of SJWs in the libertarians is what finally pushed me from one camp to the other.

      The leftists who infiltrated the libertarian movement told those on the Right they weren’t welcome. The open letter to Ron Paul a few years back was their official proclamation – and then they pretend to be shocked that these people joined the Alt. Right.

      Like

  12. HamOnRye says:

    For the record I like the idea of a partnership with libertarians, and your post has spurred a great deal of though on the subject. With that said I issue you and likeminded individuals a warning, but one void of malice.

    The libertarian movement is a converged movement. The commenter “SomeOtherGuy” is a prime a predictable example of this convergence. As with all converged organizations and movements there will be a push to onboard more leftists, and eventually clamp down on acceptable topics for discussion.

    As part of that process any individual willing to engage the Alt-Right in civil discourse will be targeted and pushed out. They will parade you around as an example of what happens for crossing their ever shifting narrative. They will likely go after your means of employment and will hound you on social media. They will dox you, and they will most certainly threaten you.

    Please be sure you understand the price you will pay before you pay.

    Like

    • cynicinchief says:

      This is what I’m starting to see happen. Convergence will kill the Libertarian party, and drive those who do not comply with the Social Justice narrative towards the Alt-Right whether they like it or not. If that happens, most of the Libertarian refugees will be able to find a home in the Alt-Right. Most of the current Alt-Righters were once Libertarians and understand the thinking, if not still hold to most of the Libertarian principals (albeit within the Alt-Right framework).

      Like

      • The Question says:

        Most of the current Alt-Righters were once Libertarians and understand the thinking, if not still hold to most of the Libertarian principals (albeit within the Alt-Right framework).

        This is definitely what I have heard from my discussions with people on the Alt. Right. They hate neocons and want limited government, but they understand that liberty is a distinctly Western concept.

        Like

    • The Question says:

      For the record I like the idea of a partnership with libertarians, and your post has spurred a great deal of though on the subject. With that said I issue you and likeminded individuals a warning, but one void of malice.

      I’m glad that it is generating the discussion, but I truly believe it needs to happen. Even if people don’t agree, refusing to dialogue with those who have mutual goals helps no one.

      I’m thinking of reaching out to others on the Alt. Right, just to have the conversation and see where it leads. If nothing else, we cooperate when we can and don’t when we’re at odds on an issue.

      As part of that process any individual willing to engage the Alt-Right in civil discourse will be targeted and pushed out. They will parade you around as an example of what happens for crossing their ever shifting narrative. They will likely go after your means of employment and will hound you on social media. They will dox you, and they will most certainly threaten you. Please be sure you understand the price you will pay before you pay.

      I appreciate the word of caution.

      Like

  13. Baus says:

    1. What issues about free trade do you think remain unaddressed from a libertarian perspective? (A summary list would be helpful).
    2. (Let me use a less politically-loaded term, “poly-cultural”. Do not attribute any neomarxist, identity politics notions here. I mean actually and simply voluntary “cultural heterogeneity” [without any necessary connection to ethnicity]). Do you find it incompatible with libertarianism to hold that, descriptively, poly-culturality is the natural human condition?
    3. Libertarians are egalitarians in one important sense, and this is the main opposition between alt-rightism and libertarianism: https://mises.org/library/equality-unknown-ideal . And VoxDay’s contempt for human rights makes this clear. This is also why there will be absolutely zero rapprochement between real libertarianism and alt-rightism. Why not recognize these statist bozos for what they are?

    Like

    • The Question says:

      . What issues about free trade do you think remain unaddressed from a libertarian perspective? (A summary list would be helpful).

      Vox Day has argued that free trade would require half of Americans under 35 will have to emigrate at some point in their life. In this sense, free trade undermines social, cultural, and national stability because people have no incentive to invest in their local community if it’s likely they will be forced to move at some point. If someone wants to refute this or show how it might be mitigated, I’m all ears. Like I said, I’m still free trade, but the fact that this has gone unanswered bothers me.

      Do you find it incompatible with libertarianism to hold that, descriptively, poly-culturality is the natural human condition?

      The short answer is technically no, but it becomes problematic when attempting to address political issues. If you mistake something that is the product of the state as a natural phenomenon, then you misinterpret the symptoms of problems in that unnatural culture as the cause for them.

      I say homogeneous nations are the natural order as a description, not a prescription how things are done. People often mistake this as the latter and assume I have some grandiose Vision for how this must be carried out.

      My argument is “get the state out of planning society and people will voluntarily associate accordingly.” The policies of the Western nations on this issue has been forced integration and forced multiculturalism; it is coercive because without state violence it would not occur.

      Libertarians are egalitarians in one important sense, and this is the main opposition between alt-rightism and libertarianism: https://mises.org/library/equality-unknown-ideal

      Long writes:

      But legal equality as such is too limited to constitute the libertarian ideal.

      This is where I strongly disagree with Long and others who adhere to egalitarianism. All humans have the same right of self-ownership. That is what the Declaration of Independence argued, and that is where “equality” begins and ends. From there, it is self-evident that all men are utterly unequal. Some men are richer, stronger, smarter, better looking than I. Others are poorer, weaker, less intelligent, and uglier than I. That is the product of a fallen, imperfect world. There is simply no evidence whatsoever to suggest equality ever existed or ever could, aside from the state creating it.

      And VoxDay’s contempt for human rights makes this clear. This is also why there will be absolutely zero rapprochement between real libertarianism and alt-rightism.

      Vox Day and the Alt. Right recognize the right of other people and their nations to exist. It is a right denied to Westerns, who are told they must allow themselves to dispossessed in their homelands by the soft-genocidal policies of their governments. The Alt. Right is the only ideology that is willing to call this moral double standard out and oppose it.

      If libertarians – for reasons that I can only speculate – do not want to talk about something that globalists openly brag of in newspapers and to each other, that is their choice. However, they will only become irrelevant in discussing what is now the greatest concern of Western people at this time.

      Why not recognize these statist bozos for what they are?

      The truth is, men who have similar goals but different solutions have more in common than men with similar solutions but different goals. It’s far easier to critique a man’s solutions when he wants the same thing.

      Like

      • Baus says:

        you write: “free trade undermines social, cultural, and national stability because people have no incentive to invest in their local community if it’s likely they will be forced to move at some point.”

        I don’t see the problem. Industrialization, for example, prompted migration and change. Development always involves movement and changes, and general increased mobility and movement are inevitabilities. Your conservative impulses lead you to “distrust” the facts of spontaneous order? You give yourself to the fatal conceit of thinking it would be better to command the economy, in a futile attempt to preserve “community investment”? It think all of this *has* been addressed by libertarianism, but perhaps your more fundamental conservatism doesn’t like the answer?

        you write: “I say homogeneous nations are the natural order as a description.”

        Well, we have a fundamental disagreement in analysis of the natural order. Especially when there is free trade, there is inevitable poly-culturality. Again, you may not like it, but that just means your tastes are unnatural. And you would be free to be unnatural, but it seems to bristle at allowing others that same liberty.

        you write: [legal equality] ” is where “equality” begins and ends.”

        I encourage you to examine Long’s article more closely. What good is “legal equality” if men are equally unfree? The equality at the heart of true libertarianism is the equality of authority.

        you write: “men who have similar goals but different solutions have more in common than men with similar solutions but different goals.”

        This only raises (and with regard to the alt-right, perhaps also begs) the question whether the goals are the same. I don’t see that a goal of the alt-right is maximum liberty. Sure enough it is a constitutive means for libertarians (ie, a means that is part of the goal itself). But the alt-right (or at least VoxDay) is frank enough to say they have no qualms about sacrificing individual liberty to reach their non-libertarian goal of their envisioned “civilization.” That’s some obvious totalitarian shit.

        Like

      • The Question says:

        I don’t see the problem.

        I see that as an enormous problem. Instability inevitably creates conflict and leads to violence. People then turn to some entity that offers security. This is how states are formed.

        You give yourself to the fatal conceit of thinking it would be better to command the economy, in a futile attempt to preserve “community investment”? It think all of this *has* been addressed by libertarianism, but perhaps your more fundamental conservatism doesn’t like the answer?

        Good thing I didn’t say I was a protectionist. If I did, you might have had a point. I’m a free trader who believes that free trade skeptics raise a legitimate question that free traders have not answered, except to say that the problem is a feature, not a bug of the system. Ye, I do not believe it is a feature of free trade anymore than Big Business is a feature of a free market economy.

        Well, we have a fundamental disagreement in analysis of the natural order. Especially when there is free trade, there is inevitable poly-culturality. Again, you may not like it, but that just means your tastes are unnatural. And you would be free to be unnatural, but it seems to bristle at allowing others that same liberty.

        You’re confusing economic integration with social and cultural integration. Free trade means people engage in commerce with one another, and to some extent there is cultural exposure and some mixture, but that doesn’t mean the two cultures fundamentally alter their identity. Even if that were to occur, that would be up for the people to decide, and there are many people who do not want this.

        I encourage you to examine Long’s article more closely. What good is “legal equality” if men are equally unfree? The equality at the heart of true libertarianism is the equality of authority.

        Long is clearly not referring to the same notion of equality as I am. I have read other writings of his on other matters that demonstrate quite clearly the Vision he has for society is fundamentally at odds with mine.

        This only raises (and with regard to the alt-right, perhaps also begs) the question whether the goals are the same. I don’t see that a goal of the alt-right is maximum liberty. Sure enough it is a constitutive means for libertarians (ie, a means that is part of the goal itself). But the alt-right (or at least VoxDay) is frank enough to say they have no qualms about sacrificing individual liberty to reach their non-libertarian goal of their envisioned “civilization.” That’s some obvious totalitarian shit.

        The Alt. Right’s goal is to preserve the West. If you want to preserve liberty, you must preserve the West, because it is a distinctly Western idea. That is why the globalist agenda is to undermine Western society, culture, and religion in which people have no loyalties, no allegiances, no ties, and no commitment to anything other than the state and supranational corporations.

        If libertarians can find a plausible, realistic alternative solution to preserving the West than what the Alt. Right has to offer, I’m all ears. Saying “I choose liberty” is akin to Robert E. Lee thinking the North wouldn’t have invaded the South if he had refused to fight for either side. He fought for the South despite being anti-secession and anti-slavery because the alternatives were not morally acceptable to him.

        Like

  14. Pingback: Stop Blaming the Alt. Right For Identity Politics | The Anarchist Notebook

  15. Pingback: My Thoughts on the 16 Points of the Alt Right | Tired Patriot

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