Lately I haven’t posted anything, even though every day seems to have a blog-worthy topic.
To be succinct, I’ve felt I’ve said all that needs to be said in a fundamental sense on any issue I see in the news.
At a certain point, a person’s part of the conversation has reached its end.
Perhaps I’m being pessimistic, but I don’t see libertarianism as an ideological faction having any significant influence or effect on the national discourse or discussion. Not that it doesn’t have relevance as a philosophy, but because its adherents generally speaking see it as a movement when it can’t and won’t, for reasons I’ve explained before.
Jeff Deists’ recent interview on Tom Woods’ podcast regarding the future of the “libertarian” label seems to vindicate my assertion.
The belief that one should leave each other alone is insufficient for a collective identity of any kind. The fight over the libertarian “label” and “thick” v. “thin” libertarianism would have been avoided had proper separation occurred.
Further, partnerships, alliances, and other limited working relationships are possible only when there is a mutual goal. It is self-evident that the various factions within the “liberty movement” have mutually exclusive visions of the world they want to live in and, correspondingly, the political stances they will take. If you want to create a new man, you’re not going to get along with a traditional man.
Some other quick thoughts on the problem.
- Libertarians insist on dialectic when the political realm is a game of persuasion and rhetoric. Trump’s “MAGA” slogan was a textbook example of effective political rhetoric. Study effective meme-generators like Vox Day who writes: Remember, the most effective rhetoric communicates truth without necessarily being literally truthful in the details. It persuades through emotion, not reason, which is why it cannot be analyzed in the same way as a logical syllogism.
- There’s also a lot of preaching to the choir. Mocking the American flag as a “skycloth” and “statists” gets you lulzlzlz from fellow libertarians, but persuades nobody. If you’re not trying to change someone’s mind and just want to puff up your own chest, just cough up to it.
- The persistent conflation of “nation” with “country” – as though nations couldn’t and wouldn’t exist without the state – and the examination of political situations from a hyper-individualistic perspective. It’s why much libertarian analysis on cultural and social disputes is way off.
- Obsessing over “ideological purity” when attempting to rectify real-life political problems. No plan no matter how perfect ever survives first contact. If you’re a hipster libertarian just trying to be ironic about it, at least be honest.
- Vague or unrealistic goals. I was once guilty of thinking otherwise, but government is not going away. Making its abolition your goal is as Utopian as trying to abolish poverty. As RamzPaul once pointed out, they don’t have a coherent plan on how they achieve their “stateless society” and, consequently, how to maintain it against those who favor government. The fact that you have the right to something means nothing if you can’t protect that right from someone stronger than you. So set limited, tangible and realistic objectives that can be measured. For example, stop worrying about whether people call themselves libertarians. Names and labels don’t matter as much as actual ideas and beliefs.
- Living vicariously through politics as individuals – libertarians should strive to live as free as possible to pursue personal ambitions, but they should strive for them irrespective of what or who is governing them. Making politics an idee fixe or waiting for the political situation to change before pursuing personal goals is a recipe for misery, and we all know what misery loves.
Perhaps I have other thoughts, but I’m too preoccupied living the productive life of a free man, a life I intend to live no matter what happens around me.