Libertarians (Wrongly) Presuppose Common Values

Over at the Orthosphere, writer Kristor levels a criticism of libertarianism that it presupposes the absence of any common culture (don’t misunderstand his use of the word “cult”).

Libertarianism is ever the precursor to tyranny. For, it proposes the maximum proliferation of disparate cults, that – precisely because they are compelling cults respecting First Things – cannot but condemn and abjure each other, and wish each other deleted, and so sooner or later find themselves at hot war. Tyranny then is needed, to maintain social order.

A similar charge was leveled against libertarianism by Jack Donovan years ago (his website makes it impossible to find old essays now) in which he argued that individualism is only possible through a large, powerful state. In its absence, people turn to tribes or collective groups to find identity.

I really don’t care to argue with Kristor or Donovan as much as I’m piggybacking off his remarks, because this isn’t really a critique of libertarianism philosophy as it is against the presumed values of the rank-and-file adherent, whether they be a DC-Beltway libertine or a culturally conservative small town Evangelical.

Libertarianism is only concerned with coercion and aggression; it is an incomplete moral theory and does not claim or attempt to address other issues. Thus, there is nothing un-libertarian about people forming collective associations in the form of nations, societies, or cultures. The idea that your next door neighbor should be just as likely to have nothing in common with you that matters as they actually do, is a product of modern Western shibboleth on multiculturalism and “diversity.”

The fact that many libertarians have their own peculiar Utopian vision of how the world would function without these entities is undeniable – and laughable.

I’ve come to pick on fellow libertarians lately because they tend to get so many critical areas just as wrong as non-libertarians, and in some ways it’s much worse.

We’re always going to have some form of a coercive government; I defy anyone to say this isn’t going to be the case. So for someone to hold that states or governments have some duties or obligations to fulfill in certain areas of life, since they will always exist and hold power over those services, is logical and easy for me to overlook.

However, it is absolutely inexcusable for libertarians to think that every single person on this planet is some sort of atomized individual with no collective identity whatsoever, that they are hypothetically just as bit a libertarian as they themselves are, and that this has no bearing whatsoever when they migrate en masse from one political territory to another. Further, they hold that libertarians are morally bound to not observe these obvious patterns of behavior and pretend that it is impossible to make sound judgement accordingly. They presuppose everyone else shares their beliefs and infer that libertarianism cannot be realized until every single person the planet has converted to the Cause.

This mentality and attitude only enables and give moral support to horrendous policies affected on a national and global level that is sure to bring about the very chaos and conflict that our detractors claim, and as Kristor points out, this leads to the very tyranny we libertarians claim to oppose so dearly.

Whatever we want to think of Chris Cantwell’s current political trajectory, he was right when he said that libertarianism isn’t a suicide pact; sadly, I’ve come to find that while the philosophy itself is anything but, much of the movement that bears its name is fully determined to make it so.

People kvetched when Jeff Deist said blood and soil still matter to people and we libertarians ignore it at our own risk, but he was more right than perhaps he knows. Ignoring these things has only relegated many libertarians to the corner of the room and irrelevant to the larger discussion.

Or worse, they become useful idiots to the people they think they’re actually opposing.

Posted in Culture, libertarianism | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Modern Bigotry

Apparently antisemitism is on the rise following the election of Trump.

Social justice activists at a New York high school successfully shut down a production of “The Hunchback of Notre Dame” after a Jewish student landed a lead role.

Protests of the production began when an African-American student quit Ithaca High School’s musical production due to the role of Esmeralda being given to a Jewish classmate.

“It shows you that theater wasn’t made for you,” the student told the Ithaca Journal. “And it shows you that, if you can’t get the parts that are written for you, what parts are you going to get?”

Student activists then banded together under the umbrella of Students United Ithaca and wrote a letter that included a list of demands, saying that, while the young lady cast as Esmeralda was “a stellar actor, singer, and dancer” any production would be “lucky to have,” she couldn’t be cast in this role because she is the “epitome of Jewishness.”

…..The Ithaca City School District announced it canceled the musical in an attempt to be “more inclusive and culturally responsive” in their “efforts to eliminate institutional biases.”

……After the cancelation, the student group made more demands in a recent Facebook post.

“Stop the racist and openly stated policy of ‘color blind’ casting in the ICSD,” the group wrote, adding “because of institutionalized racism this results in Jewish children being cast in roles written as Jewish parts and also Jewish children being cast in roles that were specifically intended for people of color.”

Ladies and gents, this is the kind of hatred that spurred all kinds of pogroms and ethnic cleansings throughout history.

Except it wasn’t a Jewish girl in question (heh); she was actually white.

But let’s all imagine for a moment how much kvetching would occur had this story actually concerned a Jewish girl.

I grew up being read a pre-SJW children’s book by a preschool teacher about a black girl who encountered resistance from classmates for trying to play Peter Pan in a school play.

We have come full circle, ladies and gents.

Perhaps now is time to quote the great Jack Donovan on why this is happening, and what needs to happen for it to change.

The best and most successful white men in the world are infected with parasites and if they refuse to stand up and tell these garbage people to fuck off, they deserve to fail. They deserve to be enslaved by their lessers. Their race deserves to perish.

Sadly, it’s not older whites who will suffer so much as their offspring who will live as a minority in their ancestors’ homeland. If this high school incident is any indication, merely being relegated to second-class citizenship might be a positive outcome.

Posted in Culture, doom and gloom, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

The Notion of “Common Property” Is Inherently Communist

"Common Property" Is Inherently Communist

How “common property” is treated.

Bob Higgs is a libertarian American ex-pat living in Mexico who in a recent blog post wrote the following within the context of immigration and borders (bold emphasis added):

As for so-called public property, which the government purports to own, the situation is different: the ownership of such property justly resides in no particular person(s); it is therefore common property, and any person whatsoever, including a migrant, has as much right as any other person to gain access to and use it.

This is a communist, not libertarian, take on property. The libertarian perspective is that state-owned property resides in the people who are forced to finance its control and maintenance.

This is why back in the day only property owners could vote; they were the ones forced to pay the tax, so only they got a say in the matter. And were we to return to this voting restriction, we would be able to roll back much of the state.

If you are taxed and that money goes toward the control or maintenance of property, you have a just claim to deciding how that property is handled. If you aren’t, then you do not.

Is anyone seriously going to claim that I as American have a right to access state-owned property in China or India and can use it however I wish?

It’s amazing that some libertarians can argue that taxation is theft, yet then argue that property held by a criminal entity through that theft somehow belongs to everyone on the mere basis that it is illegitimately possessed.

As I wrote recently, under this logic it is perfectly acceptable for drug dealers to cook meth in RVs in national forests, or even on the sidewalk. In fact, any form of behavior is acceptable on any state-owned property, provided it is not technically “aggressive” or “coercive” in nature.

However, the fact remains that this system is not even remotely close to resembling how that land would be managed were it privatized.

Higg’s “common property” policy is currently adopted by cities such as Seattle and Portland regarding the homeless, and the outcome is as plain, obvious, and predictable as natural resources “belonging to the people” creates shortages in socialist countries.

The result has been the complete takeover of bike paths and public parks by drug addicts and the mentally ill, none of whom are technically acting “aggressive” or “coercive” when they urinate and defecate in public. In Denver, the city has decriminalized defecating on the sidewalk to prevent the deportation of illegal aliens.

You smell that stench? Apparently it’s the fragrance of liberty.

Perhaps these cities should give these people $1,000  and a one-way bus ticket to Mexico. After all, Mexico belongs to the homeless in America just as much as the Mexicans who already live there (and have lived for millennia) and pay that government’s taxes.

In fact, the U.S. should send its all its homeless and unemployed into foreign countries and have them simply occupy the common property, and if they happen to get access to welfare goodies at the same time, well, the people already living do too, so there!

My parting thought is that open border libertarians should avoid calling the Alt. Right a bunch of left-wing socialists when their own treatment of state-controlled land is no different than that of the communist party. Either that, or they can take up my standing challenge as to why their view on the matter is perfectly aligned with the views of Hillary Clinton and other Progressives who favor bigger government in every aspect of life.

Either globalists are all secretly libertarians, or open border advocates within libertarianism need to take a step back and rethink their position.

Obviously I’m not arguing in favor of Soviet bloc-style borders and immigration. I’m saying the people who are taxed and forced to adhere to the laws of a political jurisdiction have a just claim in trying to regulate how the finite amount of resources is handled and restrict who has access to it.

For libertarians, the idea is to have the management of state-controlled property resemble the private sector as much as possible. There is no example of a “free-for-all” on private land; all land owners to one extent or another impose restrictions and rules for those who enter and are allowed to enter.


Posted in borders, Immigration, libertarianism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Additional Thought On Open Borders Debate

I keep having these epiphanies, so there it is.

We have to keep in mind what open border advocates say compared to what they truly mean and the implications for it.

When they advocates open borders, they are not advocating for the privatization of the land in question. That is a separate discussion entirely.

They are advocating that the government controlling those borders not place any restrictions on who comes, goes, and stays on that land.

Here’s the importance of that: Under this scenario, a government still has power over the border. It’s not the same as getting government out of entirely and having it fully privatized. Under that scenario, the private groups would take over and assume responsibility.

Under the open borders policy as advocated, governments are still in charge, but don’t do anything. However, this is not a reflection of the free market or privatization. They are using coercion to control land at the financial expense of people who have no say over how that property is managed. This is neither libertarian nor a reflection of the market.

In the free market, a private group would assume control of the land and financial obligation for it, but also place restrictions to fulfill both elements.

Open borders advocates’ argument on immigration and human movement, if applied elsewhere, would hold that drug dealers should be allowed to cook meth in an RV within National Parks because the state has no legitimate authority to enforce those rules because it has no just claim to that land it acquired through coercion and finances through theft. Also, in a libertarian society drug dealing would be legal and so would meth production, so the state has no right to enforce anti-drug laws, either.

However, any libertarian would half a brain understands that though the land is controlled and managed through theft and coercion, allowing actual anarchy as commonly understood in society, is nothing but chaos. Also, he would note that all of this is a distortion of the market due to government interference.

A private “national park” would be run by a group that has acquired the land and the money to manage it legitimately. To think they would have no rules about what is allowed on that land or who steps foot on it requires more than cognitive dissonance; it requires pure deceit and lying on the part of the person saying it.


Posted in borders, Immigration, libertarianism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

My Standing Challenge To Open Border Libertarians

Having argued with open border libertarians (outside of this site) for long enough, I’ll leave a simple challenge from now on:

First, I’ll define “open borders” as: The unrestricted flow of humans on state-controlled land in and out of a political jurisdiction, irrespective of the internal and external factors involved.

So here’s the question (heh):

If open borders are the proper libertarian position and will result in greater freedom within the defined area where said open borders exist, why do Progressives and Leftists, i.e. people who favor greater government control over all aspects of life, adamantly support open borders for the USA and make it a major plank of their party platform? Why did Hillary Clinton say (in private) “I support open borders”?

There are only three possible hypothesis:

  • Because in this rare instance they actually favor reduced government control for a variety of potential reasons.
  • Because they mistakenly think it will lead to greater government power, when it won’t.
  • Because they act in self-interest and believe (as all evidence shows) that open borders results in people entering the jurisdiction of the USA who are more likely to support and vote for their preferred policies expanding the power of the state.

In other words, it’s Occam’s Razor v. Open Border Libertarians.

I could also ask them how open borders has worked toward making California a libertarian paradise, but that would simply belabor the point.

Posted in borders, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 12 Comments

Reviewing My Take On The Alt. Right

This has been on my mind for a while, but I think it’s important to state here.

Last year I wrote an analysis of the 16 Points of the Alt. Right by Vox Day. My conclusion at the time was that there was enough common ground between the Alt. Right and libertarians for some significant partnering, due to our mutual opposition to globalism undermining decentralization and promoting fewer governments with greater power.

I still stand by my opinion, to some degree, of anyone who adheres to that definition. However, Vox Day’s points are not an accurate reflection of what the Alt. Right as a movement today believes or emphasizes.

In fact, it is difficult to describe what the Alt. Right is, precisely. That isn’t just caused by infiltrators, trolls, and the Establishment. Its own self-described members have fought and quarrel since Charlottesville over its direction.

As such, I feel a need to clarify and elaborate briefly on my stance.

Libertarians should be willing to work with anyone of any ideology where there is common ground, yet healthy boundaries are maintained and the cooperation is mutually beneficial. It’s the last part that I would offer the greatest caveat, because there are clearly elements within that movement that are detrimental to anyone associated with them – just as there had been within libertarianism.

However, I do not see the Alt. Right as natural allies. Collaboration, if done at all, has to be carried out on a case-by-case basis just like other any political group.

That is all.


Posted in borders, Central Government, libertarianism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Forcing A Collective Identity

One way to tell the intellectual inconsistency of open border libertarians is by watching their reaction when you explicitly disassociate yourself from other people in the same country as you who are not your countrymen or your people in any sensible manner.

Whenever you get into a debate with them about immigration or borders, just say “it doesn’t matter if they come or go or what the government does, they’re not (fill in the blank ethnic group) and never will be. They’re not my people and I refuse to be associated with them on any basis other than the fact that we’re ruled by the same government. Therefore, all appeals to a shared identity between myself and them are invalid.”

Then watch them kvetch and call you all sorts of names for not accepting a coerced collective identity as decreed by your wise state overlords.

Remember, these are the same people who mock collective identity based on race and/or the “imaginary boundaries” of political jurisdictions, but then flip out when you say that certain people in that jurisdiction aren’t your people just because, well, because that’s racist!

By doing so, you’re not advocating government policy or even making a political statement. You’re declaring an identity independent of other peoples you don’t wish to be associated with. You’re declaring yourself separate from other peoples claiming to be one of you because they happen to have set foot on the same dirt your ancestors did.

For heritage Americans such as myself, it’s a one-way street: for them, anyone can become an American – which of course begs the question as to what is an American. I have yet to find a single open borders libertarian article or blog post that makes the case for heritage Americans to reject efforts to force a collective identity with the immigrants entering the country. In other words, none of them are saying, “government borders are wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that the immigrants coming here aren’t Americans and won’t be, and actual Americans are free to maintain a separate identity in the form of culture, traditions, customs, beliefs, values, and collective historical experience.”

Ironically enough, for people who love to bash nationalism, they actually cherish their own form of it – civic nationalism.

The reason? They’re cosmopolitans who hate, hate, hate, hate the notion of anyone anywhere of Western descent separating themselves from non-Westerners in any manner and adopting a distinct identity in which there is “us” and “them.”

Ultimately, they’re not anti-state borders; they’re anti-boundary activists, many of which secretly harbor a fondness for the ongoing deconstruction of Western ethnic identities in which Westerners are not allowed to define their identities without the supervision of the state and the input of outsiders.

Posted in borders, cultural marxism, Culture, Immigration, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 6 Comments