A 20th Century Lesson

Note: It is the time of year when people feel generous. If you are looking for someone that would appreciate a small donation, consider kicking in a few bucks to our friends at The White Art Collective who are making a film. They want to make a movie, but they need your help!  Click here for more info.


At the heart of libertarianism is the claim that in order to fully enjoy your natural rights you must be free of coercion. That is, you are not subject to the claims of other people either directly or indirectly. The only direct claim a person has on another person is the enforcement of a contract. Similarly, you can demand that whole society respects your autonomy and property rights. Otherwise, no person in a libertarian society has a claim on any other person in the society.

Simplifying it, the libertarian society assumes you have absolute dominion over yourself, outside of the narrow exceptions for the enforcement of contracts and the defense of private property. More important, maybe most important, members of a libertarian society have an obligation to respect the autonomy of others. The social contract, if you will, gives members the maximum liberty, in exchange for the maximum amount of minding your own business.

Hans Hermann-Hoppe identified two unsolved problems within libertarian theory that he has spent a long time trying to solve. One is that there is no way within libertarian theory to go from our current societies to a libertarian one. The other problem is there is no way within libertarian theory to police a libertarian society. The non-aggression principle rules out coercion as a way to keep people from straying from libertarianism into something like socialism or even communism.

It is the first problem that has occupied the minds of libertarians. How can we get from where we are now to even a few steps down the road toward paradise? One effort has been to convince people to become libertarians. Proselytizing has always been a central part of the movement, which is why many people outside of the libertarian subculture view it as something like a cult. The libertarian, like the vegetarian, is always ready to announce his membership in the cause.

The proselytizing has always come with an eye on politics. In theory, libertarians must reject the premise of liberal democracy. The closest they can come is some sort of democratic process for settling direct and indirect claims. Otherwise, there is no role for the state so there is no reason to have elections. Even so, libertarians have tried to use the democratic process to change the law in their favor. The legalization of drugs, for example, has been a main cause of libertarians.

A lot has been made about the effect this has had on conservatism. Way back in the last century, Frank Meyer cooked up a new formula for the American right that brought libertarians into an alliance with traditionalists and neoconservatives. This Cold War coalition would make up what was called the conservative movement. After the end of communism, this coalition fell apart. Today it is nearly impossible to see the difference between libertarianism and mainstream conservatism.

Something else happened during the last century. The contact with mainstream liberal democratic politics deranged libertarianism. Some libertarians, the left-libertarians, transformed into corporate libertines. In exchange for a comfortable lifestyle, they promote every degenerate fad of the left in the name of freedom. The left-libertarians have been enthusiastic for every subversive cultural fad, as long as it came with fat donations from corporate sponsors.

Right-libertarians have largely avoided the cultural issues, instead focusing all of their energy on the power of the state. Ron Paul has been the best known of the bunch, fashioning a political career as a platform to promote libertarianism. At the heart of his argument is the assumption that once the state is removed from the lives of people, the cultural questions will answer themselves. It is the state that puts its thumb on the cultural scale, creating the culture war.

It is a nifty bit of logic, which turns the old Marxist formulation on its head. Marx said that once you get the morality right, there is no need for politics. That is, once everyone has the same morality, there is no need to debate public policy. The friend enemy distinction goes away as we all share the same goals. Ron Paul argues that once you get the politics right, the moral issues settle themselves. Without an active state, there is no need for culture and therefore no culture war.

The last ten years has provided a test for that theory. It has also brought us back around to that second conflict within libertarianism identified by Hoppe. Over the last decade, corporations have assumed greater power over the lives of citizens and they have become active in directing the culture of society. On the one hand we have non-government elements of society that are trying to coerce others. On the other hand, that coercion is specifically over cultural issues.

For left-libertarians, this has not been a problem. They sold out to corporate interests long ago so this works fine. If you do not like Apple sexualizing your kids and funding grooming gangs, just start your own trillion dollar tech company. Interestingly, this approach was aped by neocons like Ben Shapiro. He was a leading voice in the “just build your own internet” phase of the crisis. The neocon – libertarian nexus is something that warrants further exploration.

Putting that aside, the right-libertarians have had a dilemma. You cannot on the one hand put personal independence at the top of your moral hierarchy and at the same time ignore or excuse the grotesque abuse of basic rights by corporations. The solution has been something like what you see in this Ron Paul post. You see, the tech giants are not rampaging through the culture and trampling your rights because they want to do it, they are doing it to please the state.

After a long story about Ed Markey howling for censorship, Paul writes, “Big tech companies silence their users to curry favor with politicians and bureaucrats, often after “encouragement” from politicians and bureaucrats. Therefore, to end big tech’s censorship, Americans should demand that all government officials — including the president — not violate the First Amendment.” You see, that army of scolds hired by Twitter was to please the state, not the shareholders.

The reason Ron Paul and other libertarians cling to this ridiculous idea that corporations are unwilling participants in the culture war is that they have no answer to the problem of corporate activism within libertarian theory. In fact, to even acknowledge such a thing as corporate activism blows a hole in libertarianism. The whole point of libertarianism is the maximizing of freedom. If it has no way to defend your freedom from powerful members of society, then why would anyone be a libertarian?

Of course, this is the problem Hoppe identified years ago. Individualism is a wonderful concept as long as it exists within a collective outer shell. In other words, the extreme individualism expressed by libertarianism works only if everyone has been so thoroughly conditioned by a pre-existing cultural framework that no one within the libertarian society would ever consider coercion. Libertarian man must be the result of severe cultural programming.

This is why Marx still matters and von Mises does not. Marx was wrong about many things, but he was correct about one big thing. If you get the morality right, then everything else falls into place. Politics is therefore about getting the morality right, even imposing morality on the whole, in order to make it possible for the citizens to maximize their life within society. Put another way, the point of political struggle is to define “who we are” and then put an end to the debate.

In the fullness of time, the 20th century will be viewed as a long human experiment with the ideas of the 18th and 18th century. Various forms of socialism, communism and libertarianism were put through their bloody paces, only to see all of them fail as an answer to the only question that matters. “Who we are” is the question every civilization must answer. That is a moral question. Perhaps the 21st century will be remembered for finally having answered that question properly.


If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!


Promotions: We have a new addition to the list. Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that makes coffee. They actually roast the beans themselves based on their own secret coffee magic. If you like coffee, buy it from these folks as they are great people who deserve your support.

Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start. If you use this link you get 15% off of your purchase.

The good folks at Alaska Chaga are offering a ten percent discount to readers of this site. You just click on the this link and they take care of the rest. About a year ago they sent me some of their stuff. Up until that point, I had never heard of chaga, but I gave a try and it is very good. It is a tea, but it has a mild flavor. It’s autumn here in Lagos, so it is my daily beverage now.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb.  Just email them directly to book at sales@minterandrichterdesigns.com.


139 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joel
Joel
1 year ago

At the heat of libertarianism is the claim that it is wrong to use force against those who are not a direct physical threat to one’s life, liberty or property. There are other wrongs too. There is no special badge or uniform that make it ok to use force against a peaceful person. Crimes still happen, but we will all be held individually accountable for our actions regardless of the hat or robe we wear. The people in society that believe this provide the blessings of liberty to the rest of us. Libertarians are not pacifists. We believe in the… Read more »

Tomas
Tomas
1 year ago

“Who are we?” is not a universal political problem. It is a sepcial political problem of multicultural societies, which are largely modern. I don’t think Hoppe is the answer to everything, but it is true that he’s spent time thinking about this problem. His models of how we would have multi-ethnic, multi-religious ” insurance companies” dispensing law, order, and justice seem to me unworkable, but he hasn’t just taken the Paul-ian perspective described by Z-man. It seems to me that we could have something like what Hoppe envisions within the context of a Minarchist state. It would have to be… Read more »

Robert
Robert
1 year ago

Oh, lets just have “Marxist Libertarianism” then, where we will use the State to “force people to be free,” and once everyone understands that their only option is to be free or else then what? Wait, we’ve heard this one before: With the advent of the “New Libertarian Man” the State will just wither away? All the pols and bureaucrats that people gave over power and authority will just realize that their jobs are done and walk away to polish up their resumes and resign en masse? That worked out so well in the Soviet Union, didn’t it. Yeah, you… Read more »

trackback
1 year ago

[…] Posted on November 29, 2022 […]

John Flynt
John Flynt
1 year ago

Maybe some old heads will remember a congressman from the late 70s to early 80s named Larry McDonald. President of the Birchers, died in a plane. The closest to the Platonic ideal of right wing libertarian purist. But why did McDonald hold those views. Nothing in his formal ideology logically followed with his positions on cultural issues. It’s simply because of his upbringing, an upbringing in a decidedly non libertarian society and culture. So that if he had his way ironically, he never would have had his views in the first place. Similar to Christian Democrats who take for granted… Read more »

Coalclinker
Coalclinker
1 year ago

About 20 years ago, I was once interesting in libertarianism.

Now I say to current day ardent libertarians this question that I found an answer to long ago:
How do you deal with the people who deserve a bullet in the back of their head?

Steve
Steve
Reply to  Coalclinker
1 year ago

You answered your own question.

My guess is that you are using a very limited definition of “aggression”. Someone does not have to pull the trigger. Pointing the gun at you is enough. Taking some action that will destroy your life or your way of life is enough. Simply being a commie is not. Acting on being a commie is.

Ben the Layabout
Ben the Layabout
1 year ago

If there is one core lesson here, it is the immortal wisdom of St. Paul, that the love of money is the root of all (or at least a great many) evils. I’d add other inducements too: positions of power, etc. Every man will sell his soul for a price, not just left-libertarians. The profit motive has its uses, but like any good idea, it can be taken to extremes. Arrogating wealth and power to oneself would appear to be such a category.

WCiv911
WCiv911
Reply to  Ben the Layabout
1 year ago

Like Aristotle said, moderation, the golden mean.

Ambition, greed, money – all good, in moderation. Enough is never enough for whom enough is never enough.

Steve
Steve
1 year ago

Ever the optimist, I read columns like this hoping that Hoppe won’t be deified yet again, but my hopes are always dashed. Molyneaux is close. Or maybe he’s been able to close the gap over the last decade or so since I last checked. Bylund has it pretty much spot on, though because of his career path, I get that he can’t go there. Block can’t get things like contractualism out of his head long enough to realize that’s all smoke and mirrors. Rothbard would have benefitted a lot had he lived long enough for people to poke holes in… Read more »

Bourbon
Bourbon
Reply to  Steve
1 year ago

I never met a libertardian IRL who was not an obvious psychopath [and typically very spergtardedly so].

Note that “psychopath” does not necessarily mean “Evil”; psychopath means “the absence of empathy”.

Steve
Steve
Reply to  Bourbon
1 year ago

Can’t speak to that, not knowing who you have met.

I used to run into them at the sale barn all the time. Ranchers are often libertarians who just don’t know it. If being able to run a multi-million dollar operation like that, 24/7/365 in any weather from drought to whiteout blizzard is what you mean by “psychopath”, we need more of them.

Personally, I’m somewhere between a 1788 Jefferson and our host.

William T Quick
1 year ago

Robert Heinlein: “Ah, yes, the “unalienable rights.” Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What “right” to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What “right” to life has a man who must die if he is to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of “right”? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man’s right is “unalienable”? And is it “right”? As to liberty, the heroes who signed the… Read more »

miforest
Member
1 year ago

this article points out a simple truth . morality is a statement of right and wrong . in a disordered world of atheism, there can be no right or wrong . Which is why our western culture has literally turned to shit. I am one of those Catholics that the pope calls out for ” rigidity”. The bible says that if you walk away from god , he is fine with that , and he turn you over to your own reprobate mind . this goes for peoples too. this guy has clearly left the faith of his parents and… Read more »

imnobody00
imnobody00
1 year ago

Excellent essay. Since the so-called Enlightenment, Western culture has tried to based their society on impossible things, on squared circles. Even with the huge amount of wealth that has protected us against a quick collapse, this has produced all kinds of absurd ideologies. Libertarianism is one of them. Libertarianism is only the logical consequence of one of these absurdities proposed by the Enlightenment. Please, read this sentence: “The political system should be based on freedom. Nobody can impose his will on other people and everybody is free to do anything he wants, except crimes or similar. And your freedom ends… Read more »

OfftheHingeZ
OfftheHingeZ
Reply to  imnobody00
1 year ago

I just can’t America anymore bro.

“Future, or ruin!”
– A.H.

Davidcito
Davidcito
Reply to  imnobody00
1 year ago

I think Libertarians were working backwards. They were trying to find patterns for what functioned well in different sectors of society. They saw people following the unspoken rules of engagement, becoming successful and raising families. “Why, eureka! These people don’t need laws! They’re incentivized by the market to do the right thing you see.” Maybe after a million years of genetic engineering, when everyone has an IQ of 160, we’ll all be so future oriented and wise that no laws or government will be necessary. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a high IQ world and no longer even a high… Read more »

Boris
1 year ago

Well, no more Taki posts and apparently now no more Lew Rockwell posts.

Anti-Gnostic
Anti-Gnostic
Reply to  Boris
1 year ago

This was POSTED on lewrockwell.com. This is actually depressing. The last remaining libertarians have given up on libertarianism.

Robert
Robert
Reply to  Anti-Gnostic
1 year ago

YES. Exactly. Clearly, someone’s nephew who needs the work has been put in charge of what links to post on Rockwell’s site and nobody but nobody over there is taking the time to so much as speed-read through these things before linking. How else to explain a site affiliated with the von Mises Institute linking an article which casually offers Mises the back of the author’s hand, also while engaging in very low-quality intellectual theorizing. UGH.

Mow Noname
Mow Noname
1 year ago

It’s true: dey waz kangz.

imbroglio
imbroglio
1 year ago

Whadaya mean, Mises doesn’t matter? The “praexiology” of Human Acton rests on the premise that a living, breathing entity can’t just sit there. He, she, it has to do something if only to think. The rest of the canon follows. Mises was well aware of Marx and explained why the socialist commonwealth, on its own terms, couldn’t work. Mises can be refuted only by the eclipse of all freedom. Even the prisoner in their cell can pee now or wait til before dinner. “The only question that matters. “Who we are” is the question every civilization must answer. That is… Read more »

trumpton
trumpton
Reply to  imbroglio
1 year ago

It an also be refuted by the removal of a functioning consciousness and a regression to an NPC bicameral state governed by implanted commands and semantic virus constructs.

what good are societal freedoms to non-conscious beings?

why do people not recognize that the insanity is pushed as an assault on human consciousness and logical thought itself?

Anti-Gnostic
Anti-Gnostic
Reply to  thezman
1 year ago

Interestingly, the last true libertarians over at lewrockwell.com linked to this essay.

The dissident Right is aligning ideologically around the Caesar option.

fakeemail
fakeemail
1 year ago

OT: anyone check out the Wall Street Journal today? An article by Pence slamming Trump for dining with Ye and Fuentes followed by an editorial saying the same thing again for good measure. He’s giving nazis and anti-semites a place at the table! Ooh, evil words! Obviously, the WSJ is the establishment par excellance. But still just a perfect illustration of the Republican party attacking anyone to their Right with all the invective of the Left. Have they ever attacked the Leftists with such passion? Does it not occur to these people, that lots of Republican voters see the likes… Read more »

Mow Noname
Mow Noname
Reply to  fakeemail
1 year ago

Still waiting for the brave, freedom loving Han to rise up and overthrow the evil Xi that was breathlessly promised in yesterday’s WSJ.

Of course, if that actually happened in the USA, it would be an insurrection and perpetrators would be sent to the DC gulag for indefinite confinement without trial.

trumpton
trumpton
Reply to  fakeemail
1 year ago

What do they care, voters are a transient product, not a force that matters.

miforest
Member
Reply to  trumpton
1 year ago

only those who program the voting machines matter. did you see 2020 and 2022? do you think any future election will be different ?

Jason Knight
Jason Knight
1 year ago

Really hope I land an audition for that Black Spectre movie! I talked to Jeff Winston about it at AmRen, and he told me to email him!

Jack Dobson
Jack Dobson
Reply to  Jason Knight
1 year ago

The cinematography on the trailer is VERY high quality. Due to a number of factors, including funding, most art from “The Right” tends to be subpar. If that film is anything like the trailer looks, it will be very good.

Good luck on snagging a part.

Froissart's Ghost
Froissart's Ghost
1 year ago

I remember having a conversation with a libertarian who was incensed by a news story about some poor slob getting grief from his condominium association for flying an unapproved flag or some such. I asked why he was so angry since condominiums represent the closest real world analogue to the libertarian paradise: They are absolutely voluntary – if you don’t buy in, you aren’t subject to the rules. They are limited – if you live next door to, but not in, the condominium, they have no way of making you do anything. Also, the rules are easy to understand –… Read more »

townhall parasite
townhall parasite
Reply to  Froissart's Ghost
1 year ago

it’s true, once I became a petty bureaucrat I went mad with power.

Bilejones
Member
Reply to  Froissart's Ghost
1 year ago

Shakespeare got it right, of course, in Measure for Measure

O, it is excellent
To have a giant’s strength; but it is tyrannous
To use it like a giant.
. . .
Merciful Heaven,
Thou rather with thy sharp and sulphurous bolt
Splits the unwedgeable and gnarled oak
Than the soft myrtle. But man, proud man,
Dressed in a little brief authority,
Most ignorant of what he’s most assured,
. . .
Plays such fantastic tricks before high heaven
As make the angels weep;

The actions of the Masked Minions of Covid were the best example.

fakeemail
fakeemail
1 year ago

” Individualism is a wonderful concept as long as it exists within a collective outer shell.” True dat. The idea of millions of atomized Howard Roarks of varying levels of brilliance maintaining a coherent society is preposterous. There has to be a collective framework of race/religion/morality. “Politics is therefore about getting the morality right, even imposing morality on the whole. . .Put another way, the point of political struggle is to define “who we are” and then put an end to the debate.” It’s the point of politics and SHOWBIZ! Decades of entertainment making it crystal clear who the good… Read more »

Vegetius
Vegetius
1 year ago

Shapiro delenda est

Once Shapiro-ism is extirpated from our territories, these chick-and-egg questions concerning politics and morality will resolve themselves.

Tars Tarkas
Tars Tarkas
1 year ago

Excellent post. It’s funny how not even the libertarians can avoid the leftist machine gobbling up everything in our society. There is not one iota of difference between a leftist and a “left libertarian” The “left libertarians” would be just as comfortable in and say the same exact things in Stalinist “party.” The only thing which changes is the framing.

Ostei Kozelskii
Member
Reply to  Tars Tarkas
1 year ago

Left-libertarians are crypto-communists. For them, libertarianism is just a means to a communist end. They know that in any utterly free society, Leftism will ultimately triumph because Leftists are political animals through and through.

Right-libertarians are naive anarchists. They truly believe an utterly free society can exist and that that is a good thing. The belief, alas, is naive in the extreme. There is no evidence in human history that anarchy can prevail for any length of time. To a significant degree, human history is the history of war and governance.

Tars Tarkas
Tars Tarkas
Reply to  Ostei Kozelskii
1 year ago

“Left-libertarians are crypto-communists.”

YES. You definitely get that impression listening to them. Plus, they are every bit as bad as any wokester when it comes to ganging up on their enemies and using corporate power to silence them. They just frame it as “well, this is the market…this is freedom baby!” Of course, you deviate by one minor detail of what they’re saying and you are the dreaded fascist. There ain’t no non-aggression principle when it comes to “fascists,” in which case it’s “bash the fash”

Steve
Steve
Reply to  Ostei Kozelskii
1 year ago

“There is no evidence in human history that anarchy can prevail for any length of time. ”

Unless you realize that the world order at the level of nation states has been anarchy since, well, ever, but particularly since Westphalia.

At a smaller level, it seems true that anarchy is not stable. The question is how much collective action is necessary. The neighborhood might be a bit small, but obviously the nation-state is way too big.

Ostei Kozelskii
Member
Reply to  Steve
1 year ago

The nation-state is not anarchical. If it was, libertarians wouldn’t rail against it. Moreover, the relations between nation-states are anything but anarchical. They are certainly complex and often foolhardy, but they’re also very carefully calculated and rationalized.

The only true anarchy is atomized individualism. This seems to be the libertarian ideal, but it has never existed on any broad scale and never will.

JR Wirth
JR Wirth
1 year ago

I’m coming to believe, that the Republicans now being a spent force that don’t yet know it’s the Whig Party, the political dynamics will shift to the left and the inner working of the Democrats. Keep in mind that 1) the left is more cohesive and institutional by nature. and 2) that giant 1960’s Dem machine, with all the political machine trappings like Daley was nearly completely taken over by dirty hippies in the space of eight years. I see a similar dynamic with the millennials. I see a Bernie 2.0 coming, whomever it is, with “Medicare for all” as… Read more »

Tars Tarkas
Tars Tarkas
Reply to  JR Wirth
1 year ago

You’re too optimistic. If the “new generation” of leftists take over, Bernie Sanders is going to be the good old days. Bernie 2.0? Stalin 2.0! Preferably a POC Stalin 2.0….

The old leftists grew up in liberal democracy and it was integral to their program and in their thinking. The new left doesn’t believe in any of that.

Jack Dobson
Jack Dobson
Reply to  JR Wirth
1 year ago

True in part, wrong in part. You are correct that the Republican Party is a zombie and youth have a leftwing rage. Where you are wrong, I think, and this is the most important part, is who the “youth” are. They most assuredly are not the White Millennials all gaga over Bernie. The ascendant youth are POC and their first order of business will be to marginalize and remove from power the Bernie Bros (if not outright expel and liquidate them at a later date). People like Rep. Eric Swalwell, to name one example, are past their expiry date even… Read more »

karl von hungus
karl von hungus
Reply to  Jack Dobson
1 year ago

you have made the category error of viewing POC aw a monolithic bloc; which they are not. once white control is finally dissolved, all the various tribes will be going at each other hammer and tongs. fedgov dies and regional blocs form. what comes after nation states? city states…

Jack Dobson
Jack Dobson
Reply to  karl von hungus
1 year ago

“once white control is finally dissolved,”

No doubt. There will be an interim period, though. I expect young White Leftist domination to be brief and play out somewhat along the lines you mentioned.

LineInTheSand
LineInTheSand
Reply to  JR Wirth
1 year ago

There is war within the Democratic party about whether to prioritize economic issues (Bernie) or racial grievance. My friends who are liberals due to concern for the working class are bewildered and intimidated by the racial grievance activists. Instead of “free healthcare for all,” it may be “free healthcare for non-whites only.”

Jack Dobson
Jack Dobson
Reply to  LineInTheSand
1 year ago

Your last full sentence is absolutely correct. We need to think well beyond the traditional Left and their economic concerns. The sole issue is racial grievance.

Ostei Kozelskii
Member
Reply to  Jack Dobson
1 year ago

And this should have been obvious to all with eyes to see a good 30 years ago, let alone now. Beginning in the late 60s, class warfare began giving way to race warfare (Black Panthers, anyone?). At this point class (capital) is almost totally irrelevant and culture (race) is the nub of it all.

Jeffrey Zoar
Jeffrey Zoar
Reply to  JR Wirth
1 year ago

This younger white left is on track to achieve power about the same time the money to pay for their fantasies runs out. But this will not cause them to admit defeat. It will only increase their rage. And they will be looking for somebody to pin the blame on. We all know who that is. Question is if they can find somebody to do their dirty work for them. Pretty sure they won’t be doing it themselves. This is the safe space generation after all.

Jack Dobson
Jack Dobson
Reply to  Jeffrey Zoar
1 year ago

Given demographics, the young White Left’s reign likely will be very brief and cataclysmic. It might not survive one election cycle. While it will attempt to divert blame, the young White Left leadership will be targeted by POC almost immediately. We need to think in terms of raw tribalism.

Mow Noname
Mow Noname
Reply to  Jack Dobson
1 year ago

I’m ok with white lefty getting shanked, so long as they are all jabbed, boosted and wearing masks.

Paintersforms
Paintersforms
Reply to  Jeffrey Zoar
1 year ago

Yes, and you have wonder when people would stop being intimidated by paper tigers.

They have money to explore their fantasies. The flip side is, we get paid to lick their boots. Who needs dignity when you’ve got stuff?

Or maybe cucking has become traditional on the right, perish the thought. Certainly lefty expects to have her way.

B125
B125
Reply to  JR Wirth
1 year ago

More like Mugabe

You’re mistaken if you think the ascendant POCs are thinking anything more than “gib me whiteys stuff”, “white devils b evil”. Definitely are not sitting around debating the finer points of socialism.

Maxda
Maxda
1 year ago

Another of the libertarian problems they won’t address is their color-blindness and fondness for open borders. They simply can’t accept that their theories may possibly work in a homogenous high-trust society – but inviting in a flood of third worlders would instantly destroy their utopia (if it was ever possible).

Alzaebo
Alzaebo
Reply to  Maxda
1 year ago

That right there explains why libertarianism, as a political movement, was undergirded and promoted by such pillars as Goldwater, Mises, Rothbard, and Rand.

No, I don’t mean “secret conspiracy.” I mean they truly believe in the brotherhood of man.

The weed issue was their attempt to turn back the corruption and blackmail wrought by their own tribe.

Likewise with the antiwar stance.
The piracy by what is now the Deep State has brought no love to our people, neither has it brought love to theirs.

G Lordon Giddy
G Lordon Giddy
1 year ago

I have found Libertarians to be so libertarian that they can’t organize well, this is also a general problem on the true right. Exceptions of course. What I noticed about a recent dissident meeting was that behind the well functioning booths was a well organized person somewhere and many times that person was a woman. Women are very good at organizing and helping men. We need to do more in that area. A lot of the Christian worlds success down through history was due to the role women took in it. The mistake was allowing the progressives to distort that… Read more »

Alzaebo
Alzaebo
Reply to  G Lordon Giddy
1 year ago

Indeed, G. Lordon, indeed. What an exceptional statement. We must, absolutely must, bring our women back to our side, and this is the way to do it. They want an important role to play, just look at 3rd wave (((feminism’s))) success marketing careerism. As always, the majority was betrayed and left behind. Now it is only a few women struggling belatedly to defend the ancient and sacred prerogatives of women. They are called TERFs, anti-vaxxers, parental domestic terrorists, whores, Mollie Hatchetts, and more. What men must do, is organize other men. This is natural to us, the hunting bands; women… Read more »

MrAnthrope
MrAnthrope
Reply to  Alzaebo
1 year ago

I can’t believe you are serious. They don’t miss the Elks Club. They have money now. Money changes everything.

Neither do I buy that any Western female hanging around or not yet born cares about nationalism or “community-building” very much. They do care about public morality— which is not the same thing.

If you let women know that Taliban-style “fairness” rules will be imposed on other women they dislike, you’ll get 50% plus one female support. So much for Feminism.

PeriheliusLux
PeriheliusLux
1 year ago

I have an anecdote that is related to this post. I was recently in England. I visited the first Norman chapel which was built alongside a new cathedral. The chapel was a tiny quarter reserved for the new Norman nobility. On the columns were carved some Christian symbols and several pagan symbols including the first carving of a mermaid ever found on English soil. When visiting the cathedral the guide mentioned several times how the Normans and the Anglo Saxons negotiated the aesthetics and symbolism of the new cathedral. Look around. Is this regime negotiating the aesthetics and symbolism with… Read more »

PeriheliusLux
PeriheliusLux
Reply to  PeriheliusLux
1 year ago

I mentioned the mermaid carving because that clearly comes from the ancient mythology of Scandinavia. Of course, Disney is erasing the peoplehood from that symbol and the origins of the mythology. I don’t understand why inclusivity means erasing the people and supplanting them with another people in their myths. If they were inclusive, wouldn’t they find an African story/myth of a Hippopatomus or a gazelle or some mythical savannah creature and make a movie about that? In any case, I hope the White Art collective has a division spun up to tell our people’s mythology and stories to our children… Read more »

trumpton
trumpton
Reply to  PeriheliusLux
1 year ago

Its because many of those places have no real cultural stories apart from ones that are so limited that they are equivalent to basic children’s stories. The appropriation is in some ways an effort to give themselves an antecedent identity that can stand up in an more advanced society. Otherwise they are left with nothing culturally to stand on to subsume and consume other aspects of society they are also trying to appropriate. They and the usual suspects try and replace us in our own history and mythology in tandem with the the traitors replacing us in the present. I… Read more »

PeriheliusLux
PeriheliusLux
1 year ago

It looks like J.D. Vance and his handlers are ready with an answer to what conservatism is: https://americancompass.org/oren-cass-and-j-d-vance-on-the-future-of-the-republican-party/ Notice that the project says nothing about rights, culture, peoplehood, citizenship. The success of Britain and America were due to the morality and culture of the people, and a commitment by its ruling elite to play by the same rules. That isn’t to say they didn’t confer themselves advantages, but they did it, thanks to primogeniture, within the same framework. They also had a means to allocate resources – a vast set of new, continental size territories to explore and civilize. It… Read more »

3g4me
3g4me
Reply to  PeriheliusLux
1 year ago

PeriheliusLux: I have never been a Vance fan. He publicly eviscerated his people and heritage – the good and the bad, for public/liberal acclaim and money. He married a subcon. I am assuming, from your comment, she is a putative Christian. This is one area I am in direct disagreement with many Christians and conservatives – while baptism and the adoption of Christianity is supposed to mean spiritual rebirth and a turn away from previous sinning, it does not automatically negate someone’s genetic heritage and history. While such change is possible, it is difficult and unlikely. And even with the… Read more »

PeriheliusLux
PeriheliusLux
Reply to  3g4me
1 year ago

3g4me – I don’t know the first thing about Vance’s wife’s religious leanings. There are Christians on the Indian subcontinent – I’ve worked with a few who even take Christian names. I suspect that Vance is a construction, a product designed to be sold to Flyover Country. I dug around in his, “VC”, background. Six or seven months ago, his portfolio was a joke – laughable. A month ago I looked and it looked much stronger. This suggests to me his handlers looked at his weaknesses and made it look better. You can’t be on the campaign trail and transform… Read more »

Steve
Steve
Reply to  3g4me
1 year ago

I am in complete agreement with you regarding the non-negation of ones genetic heritage and history, as my youngest child has had an unfortunate episode with this very subject. She went to a birthday party for a classmate who happens to be a Catholic pajeet. Her bestie at school but once she got to the party, said friend all but ignored her. In addition to which, said friends extended family and other pajeet friends looked at her like she materialized from another planet. They talked about her in front of her in Hindi as well. I got a call from… Read more »

PeriheliusLux
PeriheliusLux
Reply to  PeriheliusLux
1 year ago

3g4me –

I made my way through that Vance, “interview”, with Gieb and Cass. First of all, Cass is yet another feminized goof. Vance is maddening. He correctly calls the consumer/ad “tech” of the past twenty years as parasitic. Then he lauds, “technologies like the mRNA vaccines that rid the world of Covid-19.” I go from almost certain that he is owned to absolutely certain that he is owned. Fwiw, Thiel is parroting the exact same line.

So, it looks like Bourlas owns Vance and American Compass – which probably points straight to the Eastern Mediterranean.

trumpton
trumpton
Reply to  PeriheliusLux
1 year ago

The same is true for most of not all of these new promoted populists. Greene and Boebert come out of the explore talent site run by a jewish pornographer, as was Melissa Carone fronted by Guiliani. They were obviously recruited from that.

These backgrounds, and for many others, given negative promotion in the media are entirely indicative of control and give a huge lie to the inanimate forces argument.

They are intentionally set up and promoted for the marching morons to glom onto.

Real opposition is, as you pointed, silenced and not allowed through the door.

Paintersforms
Paintersforms
1 year ago

I’m of the belief that pain is moral. Self-discipline, punishment, deferring gratification, working out, doing things that ought to be done even if you don’t want to, etc. Otherwise you’re a slave, an animal, chained down by your passions. (Of course you can go too far and become a miserable person, or a pervert.) We have a society based on pain-avoidance for the proles to the benefit of the disciplined elite. Slave society might be too harsh a description, but not by much. Some will argue ease and pleasure are always good, but I guess they’re lying, or they never… Read more »

Jack Boniface
Jack Boniface
Member
1 year ago

A big problem libertarians have is their incompetence at organizing. It’s not just their philosophy of non-aggression, but their personalities are incapable of it. They’re the opposite of today’s hyper-organizing leftists.

Crinkle Fries
Crinkle Fries
Reply to  Jack Boniface
1 year ago

You could say that about the entirety of the right.

WhereAreTheVikings
WhereAreTheVikings
Reply to  Crinkle Fries
1 year ago

“You could say that about the entirety of the right.”

Well, the corporatist Republicans have been supremely organized for decades. Then again, they are not really of the right, except in the dullard estimations of the mainstream media.

Stranger in a Strange Land
Stranger in a Strange Land
Reply to  WhereAreTheVikings
1 year ago

Corporatist Republicans (aka – Useful Idiots).

Vizzini
Member
Reply to  Jack Boniface
1 year ago

No, that’s not it at all. As the Zman details the fundamental ideology is hostile to effective organization. They’re not necessarily incompetent at it, their ideology simply prohibits them from doing the things that are necessary for effective organization. Certainly, that ideology may select for personalities that are ineffective at organizing, but it’s the ideology itself that is the wellspring of the problem.

btp
Member
1 year ago

I think the Russians are working this out reasonably well, tbqh. It turns out that you can have a technologically-advanced culture that rejects the atomization of the Enlightenment. The morality comes from the Church and it supported by the state all with the goal of the flourishing of the people, their customs, their children.

Such a program worked in the west for quite some time, also. It could work again.

Hun
Hun
Reply to  btp
1 year ago

Christianity, before it got subverted, was pretty effective at telling people where is their place and keeping them mostly happy with it.

Jeffrey Zoar
Jeffrey Zoar
Reply to  Hun
1 year ago

Before Christianity got subverted? When was that? 1500 years ago?

Mr. Generic
Mr. Generic
Reply to  Jeffrey Zoar
1 year ago

It happened right around the same time “Israel” stopped referring to The Church and instead really meant a 20th-century Jewish political state in Palestine.

Citizen of a Silly Country
Citizen of a Silly Country
1 year ago

““Who we are” is the question every civilization must answer. That is a moral question.” Yes, which is exactly why Obama used to love saying “that’s not who we are.” He was attempting to impose his morality on others. What’s happening now in this country is the ruling class keeps saying that various beliefs – tranny love, whites suck, etc. – are “who we are” but many folks, including yours truly, are saying, wait, that’s not who I am. Many a Joe Normie is realizing that they are not a part of the “we” of the ruling class. Their problem… Read more »

Stranger in a Strange Land
Stranger in a Strange Land
Reply to  Citizen of a Silly Country
1 year ago

When I read that statement my mind likewise went straight to Obama’s quote (repeated ad nauseum). As for the fun to which you refer – I can hardly wait.

Vizzini
Member
Reply to  Citizen of a Silly Country
1 year ago

Ugh. During the Obama years, every TV show managed to stuff that “Not who we are/Not who I am” verbiage in everywhere while doing the requisite moral posturing and scolding. It was like fingernails on a chalkboard.

Citizen of a Silly Country
Citizen of a Silly Country
1 year ago

“The neocon – libertarian nexus is something that warrants further exploration.”

Seems pretty straight forward. Promote extreme individualism for everyone else while your group works as a team. Reap the rewards.

Chet Rollins
Chet Rollins
1 year ago

One thing you notice reading Mises and Rothbard is, for the most part, their praxeology is correct. It does give a very effective methodology of determining how people behave, respond to incentives, and the secondary effects of various government policies. The issue with their works is the implicit moral framework that determines what is good or bad behavior. Sure, corrupting the money supply makes the true value of goods and services harder to ascertain, but in their own praxeology, the people in power have an interest in wielding these distortions to their advantage. A pure form of money isn’t some… Read more »

Chet Rollins
Chet Rollins
Reply to  thezman
1 year ago

There’s still an underlying logic to even impulsive decisions, it usually just points to a high time preference. The goodies at a checkout gives the customer instant gratification for a relatively low price without any mental effort in actively seeking it out. The purpose is as simple as “I get a small treat at low expense”.

The same goes for types of conditioning. It’s a simple mental shortcut that has worked in the past so the person will continue in his behavior until some sort of breaking point requires him to reassess.

Bilejones
Member
Reply to  Chet Rollins
1 year ago

Apparently only an absolutely perfect description of behavior is of any use,

p
p
1 year ago

Carrying this to it’s logical conclusion, then China should be Heaven?

KGB
KGB
Reply to  p
1 year ago

It would appear that for the Chinese, it mostly is.

Chet Rollins
Chet Rollins
Reply to  KGB
1 year ago

Not defending China, but it was hilarious to see the 100 protestors chanting Liberty, Equality, and a bunch of other catchphrases that screamed western op and being heckled relentlessly by other Chinese people telling them to eff off. Then western media portrayed it as some great pro-freedom uprising. That being said, outside this obvious op, there is good evidence of general unrest from Covid policy but no more severe than what happened in Western countries, and we know how ineffective the western protests were. Unless political leaders start to be found butchered in their beds, or the military stops taking… Read more »

Alzaebo
Alzaebo
Reply to  Chet Rollins
1 year ago

Ah. Thousands marched against Covid.

Right now, literal millions are marching for Bolsonaro.

The Chinese protest is being focused on by our media liars to divert attention away from Brazil and stolen elections.

(The Chinese, to be fair, is not another pathetic Hong Kong or Iran oppo. They are rightfully pissed and afraid since news of the world’s largest concentration- er, quarantine- camp got out.)

btp
Member
Reply to  p
1 year ago

China gets the morality wrong because they are unable to answer: what is the purpose of life? I mean, they have some sort of answer, but it is wrong.

Vizzini
Member
Reply to  btp
1 year ago

If you’re going to say their answer is wrong, you should at least say what their answer is.

Alzaebo
Alzaebo
Reply to  Vizzini
1 year ago

He did.
Wrong.
Their answer is, “Wrong.”

*****
Correction. You must say it with a Chinese accent.

Since they can’t say, “r”, their answer would be, “Wong.”

Bilejones
Member
Reply to  btp
1 year ago

Oddly enough. they say the same about you.

Funny Dat.

Marko
Marko
Reply to  p
1 year ago

We like to poke Shlubertarians when we say that Somalia is a Libertarian paradise, but it is not. It’s just low-trust low-IQ anarchy.

Switzerland is in fact the Shlubertarian paradise. Consider:
*Decentralized, but with solid community controls on the local level;
*Low taxes as well as a tax haven;
*Capital-friendly;
*Non-allied, but has citizen militias, and the only standing army is the one that protects the Pope;
*Almost all men are issued firearms;
*Flinty, laconic types

p
p
Reply to  thezman
1 year ago

Sorry, I meant to infer that we like, and want to be with, those that share our historical ancestry and values, and understand our cultural references. You would hardly ever see a Somali librarian, or an Italian nonna at a bris, or a Vermonter attending a quinceanera, or a low rider in Nantucket. Like the Finn who loves Japan, but no matter how hard he tries to fit in he will always be the gaijin, the John Blackthorne. Not to say that we couldn’t be friendly and polite and our kids might play together, but unless the “other” tries very… Read more »

KGB
KGB
Reply to  p
1 year ago

I agree with this, which is why I stated above that for the typical Chinaman, he’s living in what he would define as a paradise. He’s surrounded by his people and his culture, a confident people and confident culture, with no fear of replacement or dilution.

Alzaebo
Alzaebo
Reply to  p
1 year ago

Hear, hear, Marko!
A Euro cultural version of libertarianism, like the Constitutional libertarians promoting 10th Amendment solutions, not an economic corporate libertarianism as the Misesians and Chicago boys promote.

LineInTheSand
LineInTheSand
Reply to  p
1 year ago

What do you think of the following theory?

Most Asians like living in conformist, authoritarian societies. You, as a person of European descent may find this unbelievable, but you come from a very different evolutionary chain.

The protesters that you see demanding Western mores and freedoms are outliers to the Asian people in the same way that trannies are outliers to ours. Just like we shouldn’t make allowances for the trannies, the Asians shouldn’t make allowances for those who demand Western morality.

Alzaebo
Alzaebo
Reply to  LineInTheSand
1 year ago

Lawsy. Don’t think so.
We forget those bloody Chinks riot at the drop of a hat.

The Zman once said negroes riot every ten years.

So do Chinese. It’s like clockwork. I mean, ever read about their civil wars?

Perhaps this is the end of the Mao Party dynasty, and of the Red Princes, his grandchildren.

Or perhaps, a Reformation, with Deng as Martin Luther.

Ostei Kozelskii
Member
Reply to  Alzaebo
1 year ago

Martin Luther Deng, wot…

Vizzini
Member
Reply to  p
1 year ago

“Heaven” in the context of a political state in which the citizens are content with their place in the system and the rulership of the system is necessarily going to be different for different people.

Icelandics don’t *want* to live like the Chinese. They come up with different solutions for how to organize their society. There’s no one-size-fits-all solution.

Hun
Hun
1 year ago

Libertarians solve it by claiming that in an ideal libertarian society, the individual can choose their own “government” from a large selection of insurance/security companies competing in the free market. You can try one and if you don’t like their services, you can switch to another one at any time or just rely on yourself without external help. These companies would make sure that nothing happens to you, the paying customer. They wouldn’t want to lose the revenue stream. The scope of their services would differ from company to company, from simple physical protection, to comprehensive insurance services including health.… Read more »

Hun
Hun
Reply to  thezman
1 year ago

You don’t need all the “governments” being led by Nazis (Btw, this is where Hoppe sugests physical removal).

A praxeological argument can be made that the real interest of the companies would be to collude and cheat in certain areas, for example justice or insurance coverage. Also, the strong companies would inevitably eat the weak ones. Independent individuals would be bullied into signing up with one of the companies.
The end result is just one centralized government or a hierarchy of governments, which is in effect the same.

Alzaebo
Alzaebo
Reply to  Hun
1 year ago

Huh. Monarchs arose to end the warlordism.

Chinese Emperors, too. Anybody else see “Hero,” starring Jet Li?

Eloi
Eloi
Reply to  thezman
1 year ago

This is reminiscent of an extremely simplified explanation of Marx’s view on capital: The initial de- equilibrium that comes from a one exchange can be parlayed in subsequent transactions (in M-C-M, of course), further tilting the table.

LineInTheSand
LineInTheSand
Reply to  Hun
1 year ago

“They wouldn’t want to lose the revenue stream.”

This is a major blind spot of libertarians. When a company is struggling, the above is true, however, once a company or individual becomes wealthy enough they are more than happy to lose lots of money in the service of imposing their values on the culture.

Individual or companies can be become so wealthy that they are effectively immune from market forces and can engineer the culture as much as a government. George Soros, for example.

trumpton
trumpton
Reply to  LineInTheSand
1 year ago

Soros is a front to funnel the endless tax money back into endless NGO and agitation organizations against you.

He is not spending his own money, these people never do. You are funding it all.

He is no different than FTX and a myriad of other similar funnels.

Mr. Generic
Mr. Generic
Reply to  Hun
1 year ago

> It’s not difficult to see where such arrangements would very quickly go.

It’s also not difficult to understand the strong overlap between committed libertarians and recreational drug users.

TomA
TomA
1 year ago

Wow, a lot to unpack today. First, what today’s post describes is what I call big “L” libertarianism, which has been thoroughly corrupted like all major political movements. Small “l” libertarianism is essentially about self-reliance and the live-and-let-live ethos. It is about how an individual may choose to behave in the course of their life. And at the extremis interface with society-at-large, it becomes “leave me alone or I will be incentivized to eliminate you as a problem in my life.” The ideal libertarian is the exact opposite of a parasite, and mankind should aspire to be the opposite of… Read more »

btp
Member
Reply to  TomA
1 year ago

Morality being evolved…

There is considerably less innovation in morality than you seem to think. And these innovations seem to be associated with very bad things. Morality, then, being of paramount importance, requires structures that prevent too much innovation.

TomA
TomA
Reply to  btp
1 year ago

The evolutionary timeline is measured in reproduction cycles. For humans, that cycle is about 9 months, but for bacteria, can be measured in minutes. The former is much slower than the latter, and consequently, human evolutionary change is typically revealed over centuries or millennia. And for most of our specie’s history, these changes were encoded in DNA. Then language and civilization happened, and it was a whole new ballgame. Nurture rose in prominence due to postpartum verbal education of youth and subsequent habit formation based upon local wisdom and customs. Now DNA had a partner, and both operated to enhance… Read more »

btp
Member
Reply to  TomA
1 year ago

Disagree. There is not much new going on these days. Women out of control and ruining civilization? Story old as time. Gays taking over and turning everything useless and gay? The Byzantines felt with such a problem 14 centuries back. Gender-bending lunacy? Have a look at the gods of the Near East.

It’s not a new morality we are seeing. It is a tiresome old one.

Muhammad Izadi
1 year ago

||| “Who we are” is the question every civilization must answer. That is a moral question. |||

Indeed.

However, the answer to the question “Who am I” takes precedence. And, yes, that too is a moral question because Man first and foremost is a *moral* being.

Captain Willard
Captain Willard
1 year ago

Let’s do an experiment here. Let’s see if we can develop a “morality manifesto” for a DR state that we would all be comfortable having imposed on us and enforced by a future DR State.

I appreciate Z’s logic here but I wonder if it’s possible. There are many great thinkers here, so who will kick off?

Severian
Reply to  Captain Willard
1 year ago

I see where you’re going, but the problem with positive “black letter” law is that by the time you’re forced to resort to it, it’s already too late. I remember going out to see my grandparents, for example, in their tiny little farm town. It was the kind of place where nobody even thought about locking their doors, and if you started working on a project out in your yard — replacing some roof shingles or whatever — half the old coots in town would wander by to help out. And then their wives would start fixing snacks, the older… Read more »

Hoagie
Hoagie
Reply to  Severian
1 year ago

The first line of this “morality manifesto” has already been writ: “The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.” by Shakespeare.

Then it matters not whose noggin the shingle hits.

3g4me
3g4me
Reply to  Severian
1 year ago

Severian: Yes . . . and no. It’s a trope that “no one can legislate morality” and that’s only partially true. The law may initially be intended to express/enforce a group’s morality, but it can and has been easily subverted. While you are correct that there is no going back via today’s political framework and using AINO’s polyglot masses, a people can – and have – been changed. God had Moses keep the juice wandering around the desert because they had been inculcated with the morality and instincts of the slave. Moses didn’t try to deprogram them or issue new… Read more »

Stranger in a Strange Land
Stranger in a Strange Land
Reply to  3g4me
1 year ago

Upvote if only for the last paragraph.

Din C. Nuttin
Din C. Nuttin
Reply to  3g4me
1 year ago

As I read the account, God kept Moses “wandering around the desert” because Moses didn’t entirely follow God’s plan of putting every man, woman, and child to death that they came across. Which is one of the reasons I reject the bible and the god of Israel.

c matt
c matt
Reply to  3g4me
1 year ago

It is an odd paradox – you can’t legislate morality in the sense that having a law on the books doesn’t mean it will be followed; yet, morality is the most common thing to be legislated. Nearly every law has some moral basis, or seeks to impose some moral responsibility – stopping at a red light imposes the moral obligation to respect the safety of others.

Hun
Hun
Reply to  Captain Willard
1 year ago

Let’s start from the very basics:

– People are not equal. Some are smarter, many are dumb. Some are strong, some weak, etc.
– Superior people should lead the masses
– Hierarchy is inevitable. Every person has an ideal spot in the hierarchy, where they maximize their potential.

btp
Member
Reply to  Hun
1 year ago

Yes. Someone mentioned sometime something about For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? … But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him… But now are they many members, yet but one body. … And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it. The concept in the middle ages was exactly… Read more »

Eloi
Eloi
Reply to  Hun
1 year ago

“Superior” is a subjective quality.

Hun
Hun
Reply to  Eloi
1 year ago

If it’s subjective why don’t you fight it out with a MMA fighter?

Eloi
Eloi
Reply to  Hun
1 year ago

Then say strength and fighting acumen (as opposed to wit, mendacity, or other attributes that can be construed as “superior).

Eloi
Eloi
Reply to  Hun
1 year ago

Do all leaders rely on physical strength?

Hun
Hun
Reply to  Hun
1 year ago

Why would I say that? I just gave one example. Requirements for a ruler are obviously more complex. I am sure there is quite a large body of work discussing this.

Eloi
Eloi
Reply to  Hun
1 year ago

You did when you equivocated. You didn’t give an example of leadership – you gave an example of strength and skill, and then used that to “prove” superior as objective. My point is “superior” is a loose term that doesn’t really work as a metric. Not all MMA fighters are leaders. Nor are all leaders strong.
You said “superior people should lead the masses” – I just mean that your statement doesn’t really give any true criteria.

fakeemail
fakeemail
Reply to  Hun
1 year ago

Per the hierarchy, Jerome Nadler, and other stellar figures of politics and film, is much smarter and stronger than all of us combined.

LineInTheSand
LineInTheSand
Reply to  Captain Willard
1 year ago

The purpose of the state is to promote the flourishing of white people. All other ends are subservient to this necessarily vague goal. All means are permitted in the service of this goal. The state can punish you for advocating for non-white immigration, for example. The nation should be a federation of states. When large groups within the nation disagree about an important issue, for example, Christians versus non-Christians or libertarians versus socialists, they should separate into distinct states such that the disagreement is minimized. The federation of states should concern itself only with issues like common defense, preventing unwanted… Read more »

LineInTheSand
LineInTheSand
Reply to  LineInTheSand
1 year ago

Addendum: States and even neighborhoods can deny any new person or business that wishes to settle within it.

Severian
1 year ago

Libertarians would do well to revisit Hobbes, especially the notion of a “corporate person.” In the Latinate English of Hobbes’s day, “corporate” was a verb: “To make into a body.” The Leviathan wasn’t a specific, physical individual; he was a “corporate person,” a legal fiction, the embodiment of the general will (if you’ll allow me an anachronism for clarity). Because the Leviathan is *our* creation, then, “he” by definition *can’t* go against the interests of “his” people. This argument was a specific response to the execution of Charles I. The Roundheads convicted King Charles of the spectacularly odd crime of… Read more »

Eloi
Eloi
Reply to  Severian
1 year ago

Well – the corpus of people needs a head – the body and head form the Leviathan. And, though it has been many years since I have read the text, if I recall the will is to avoid violent death (in the State of Nature sense) – something that is really an outside factor of the populace – not emanating from them. The contract that forms the polity to avoid violent death is the compulsory aspect that cannot be cast aside.

AntiDem
AntiDem
1 year ago

The answer that the libertarians are looking for (but don’t want to admit to) is something that the left has understood for years – whoever wields power over you is, effectively, your government, no matter whether they call themselves one or not. The socialists of old understood that the man in the mansion on the hill overlooking the company town with its company store and its company-paid Pinkerton enforcers was, effectively, the government that ruled over the workers, no matter what the formal de jure arrangements may have been. Thus, the man in the mansion had to be overthrown just… Read more »

Hemid
Hemid
Reply to  AntiDem
1 year ago

I don’t think leftist uninterest in resisting corporate power is because corporations have come to be left-dominated or state-pleasing or whatever. Libertarians say that, and libertarians are always wrong.

Leftism as we know it now—the actual existing thing, not its supposed intellectual lineage—is the managerial ideology *of* those organizations. The “far left” (as conservatives call them) are the blindest adherents to it.

Democratic Socialists of America meetings sound like corporate HR self-criticism sessions because *that’s what they are*. HR did it first. If there was a “long march,” it was of “the institutions” through leftism.

Alzaebo
Alzaebo
Reply to  Hemid
1 year ago

Agreed. Kapitalism funded Communism. I say this explains the longevity and nature of the small hats, and their coevals- the secret of their strength is that they work, ever, to keep the ruling class families in power. To ride the horse, not to be the horse. They owned the East India Companies, true, but they owned them as Crown corporations. The horse teams are changed, at times, favors withdrawn or proffered, disputes and factions arise; but what remains is the support system. Once locked in, that system itself becomes the defined arena in whose constraints the contests are fought. The… Read more »