A friend of mine formerly known as Glomar Responder (Mr. X) on Twitter sent over this screed as a guest post. It’s an interesting commentary on the bifurcation we’re seeing in libertarianism. I’ve spoken on this matter before, as my natural inclination is toward smaller government and so I have historically been rather sympathetic toward libertarianism. But there are problems in libertarianism that continually get overlooked, and an increasing number of “left-libertarians” making their political debut. There are open-borders libertarians who do not realize they are slitting their own throats by encouraging, or at least allowing, the mass importation of people who work counter to their goals. It’s clear there is something going on, and Glomar explores the idea below.
Met with a high school friend last night, talked a bit about how libertarianism became a leftist shit show so quickly after the so-called “libertarian moment” where it looked like the Rand Pauls and Ted Cruzes were the new hotness in politics.
And she has a theory.
Libertarianism isn’t one movement, it’s two.
The popular political branch that actually got people elected and polls well in the southeast is based in the classical Anglo-Saxon system, as carried on especially by the British Isles border peoples. It basically stopped evolving at Locke.
And when founded in the US, it was REACTIONARY. It was a restoration of the rights of Englishmen and the small, local systems that the border Welsh, Scots, and Irish were used to.
So you have volunteer fire departments based on the militia system. You have Sheriffs with real law enforcement power, instead of a constabulary. You have common law rather than large bodies of code.
And then there’s intellectual libertarianism, which continued to evolve, especially in France, Germany, and Spain.
And Proudhon and Stirner had a huge influence on them.
So you get your John Henry Mackays, linking libertarian political thought with sexual promiscuity and outright pederasty.
Something that would have gotten you lynched by the “libertarians” of e.g. Kentucky.
So, unfortunately, “intellectual” libertarians run the movement, such as it is. Politicians and elites are far more likely to gravitate towards intellectual movements based in French and German philosophy than they are to say “hey, maybe those rednecks and hillbillies have preserved a great system, and we should adopt it.”
So you get think tanks, and a few college professors, pushing “respectable” libertarian thought that is atheist (due to both French revolution era and German influences), sexually promiscuous and experimental, and radically atomized individualist (because Stirner).
And the people it attracts in the academy and in young political life are the white upper middle class degenerates, because it gives them permission to be freaks, without giving them the obligations to the worker from classical communism, the obligations to the progressive stack from Frankfurt branches, or the obligations to God from social conservativism.
“Dude, weed” is actually their ideal sales pitch to the classical Anglo-Saxon borderer libertarians.
Because the Stirnerites think they should be able to have their hedonistic experiences as they choose, and the hillbillies think “you think Washington can tell me what crops I can grow? Fuck you, buddy.”
It’s a solid point of agreement between the two. As is shrinking government intervention in their lives generally.
But the hillbillies, their basic stance is “leave me the fuck alone, I can get by just fine with my family, neighbors, and church.”
And the intellectuals are much more “leave me the fuck alone, the child consented and anyway I’m raising average wages worldwide by making cheap crap in China without any trade barriers.”
You’ve got a bunch of government minimalists and localists on the one hand, who have a very long history of voluntary participation and civic duty.
They don’t like a distant crown passing edicts on them, but they’re cool with showing up at the fire hall when the chief tells them to.
And then you’ve got a bunch of people who want to be left alone because they’ve bought into the atomized individualism that lets them live without obligation. They can fuck who they want, exploit who they want, and act like general eternal teenagers.
“Fuck you, dad,” the political movement. So abortion is cool, because “the child is trespassing on my body.”
And voluntary hierarchy? REEEEEEEEEEEE!
The former is attractive or at least understandable to many normie Americans, because it’s just a more radical version of the system they were born and raised in.
They can see the Jefferson in it.
The latter is repulsive to most of them.
It rejects many of their fundamental institutions. Of course we serve in the military (militia tradition, remember).
Of course we have laws regulating marriage (still religious, never adopted the atheism of the Continental libertarian/anarchists).
And a few decades of middle and lower class guys going to college and reading e.g. Rand has kinda mashed the two together in many places.
But there’s still a fundamental divide, and it’s becoming more apparent as the “I don’t owe you or your culture shit” libertarians side with the left.
Child drag queens don’t bother them.
Why would they? So long as I don’t make you do it, I don’t owe you shit.
Immigration? Borders are just imaginary lines, statist, stop making my lawn mowing more expensive.
No, I don’t owe my neighbor’s kids shit. They should lower their price and compete with the Guatemalan lawn crews and their riding mowers.
They have to speak Spanish at school? Oh well, we don’t have an official language.
That lawn crew will eventually vote away my buttsex? Well, I’ll be dead.
Libertarian VOTERS didn’t change.
They’re still just classical Anglos (or at least spiritual anglos).
But the money and the “movement,” organized libertarianism, doesn’t represent them, it was always fundamentally different.
Anyway, long story short she’s convinced her formerly very active libertarian husband to disassociate from movement libertarianism because Darth Fonzie is cringe and gross, and Latin American socialists don’t vote with her very, very white daughter’s freedom and interests in mind.
Perhaps a proper definition of Libertarianism has to include freedom for the individual that does not impinge upon the freedom of another individual.
In other words, a group of individuals forming a community with shared values and responsibilities has the right to protect itself from individuals or other groups who would disrupt or destroy or otherwise harm that community. Hence, national borders make perfect sense.
Also, exercising one’s ‘individualism’ by following impulses to commit crime or harm children is not libertarianism, since it impinges on the rights of other individuals. It’s instead a decline into barbarism.
I would imagine a much more complete outline of libertarianism has already been formed by those who have carefully studied the works and writings of the original American revolutionaries (Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Madison), Locke and Thomas Paine. Leftist ‘libertarianism’ seems to me to be a perversion of those original themes in order to further anarchistic and barbaric impulses such as those mentioned in the essay.
I often refer to left-libertarians are ‘weedertarians’, because many of them are obsessed with the legalization of weed.
That’s me, hillbilly libertarian. Don’t come to my house and impose your vision on me. Persuade me or get lost. You’ll live longer.
Libertarianism isn’t one movement, it’s two.
Only Two? 😀
Seriously, my branch of conservationism is very close to the “Hillbilly Libertarianism” and I can get along with those sorts.
Some of the other sorts are IMO getting deep into the crazy.
Personally I think the “Left” Libertarians are just typical Lefties using Libertarianism as a skin suite, like they do to most other similar orgs (army, BSA, Catholic church and other churches, etc). In the end (I agree with the author) the no holds barred leftists libertarian”s philosophy and behavior is a dead end.
You speak sagely, oh mighty crusher of Chaldean testicles!
Perhaps the leftist urge to ‘assimilate’ everything currently outside of their pseudo-theology reflects their deeply neurotic obsession for control.
Thanks TSW,
Well when you’ve been dead for awhile you get a certain perspective. As long as you realize that the pursuit of power is paramount to Lefties, you can’t go far wrong. I think there are two basic versions of the breed 1) the ones who want power and if it screws things up so what they’ll be dead and went out on top. 2) the ones who thirst power and if screws things up to get it that’s OK they’ll fix it when they are in charge
The Founders believed government was a necessary evil to be wary of, the Left believes it’s a necessary good especially in their charge (modern day saints).
Well I’ve been rude again about not addressing the post above.
Thales as usual well thought out and well written. I’ll add that the “fuck you” libertarians lie when they say,” I don’t make you do anything so don’t judge or restrict my behavior.” They are forcing us to tacitly approve of their behavior, part of the “no consequences” argument that Libs have employed since the 70’s. It’s coming back to bite them, I’ll cite for instance their so called debate, it was there for all to see and it has degenerated into intramural squabbling, not to mention the hand raising which I loved.
I found the ‘debates’ to be quite hilarious. It was the candidates’ open and enthusiastic support of the new Dhimmicrat platform which was the best part.
From the hand raising and grandstanding, I learned that all the candidates will support the following:
1. Fully nationalized HC
2. Free HC for illegals
3. Open borders thru decriminalization of unlawful border crossings
4. Gun confiscation
5. abortion on demand up to the DOB (in other words, infanticide)
6. The complete destruction of America’s energy industry
7. LOTS more taxes (VAT, higher income taxes particularly on the middle class, carbon tax)
The dhimmicrats seem oblivious to the fact that 2, 3, 4 and 5 will alienate their hispanic american and black american demographics quite severely.
In fact, the new dhimmicrat platform seems to be designed to appeal specifically to a tiny percentage of neo-maoist, che guevara and venezuela loving, gender non-binary social/cultural marxists.
Perhaps more succinctly: the dhimmicrat party has announced that they are the “Death to America/Death to Western Civilization” party.
If they keep this insanity up for the next 15 months, they’ll get annihilated on 11/3/2020. They’ll lose the house and lose more seats in the senate, in addition to losing the presidency by the worst voter percentage in American history.
I sincerely hope that they stick to their platform enthusiastically. It will prove a near endless source of comedy gold and result in the death of the donkey party.
TSW,
Their self awareness is just fabulous.
Oh terrible smasher of chaldean skulls,
Notice how blithely they make a cardinal error in their attempt to retake the WH.
If you want to challenge an incumbent, you have to entice at least a portion of the base that voted him in. The dhimmicrats are instead doing the exact opposite. They are heavily reinforcing the decision so many of us made to vote for the GEOTUS as well as driving independents and even some of their own base towards The Grey/Orange Champion by their continual and frantic displays of psychopathy.
If they continue this, they can’t survive as a party.
Hickenlooper is their canary in the coal mine, but they’re ignoring him.
If my prediction proves correct and the dhimmicrats stay the current course to a catastrophic 11/3/20 election, people like Hickenlooper will indeed break away and form some sort of midwestern moderate/centrist democrat party. AOC and her ilk will take over the urban New Maoist party and turn any city or state that puts them in office into a third world hovel.
You forgot the part where the rest of us will be expected to bail out our very own third world hovels.
The whole problem here is that the LibertARIAN Party has been taken over by the LibertINES.
Is anyone familiar with Patrick J. Deneen’s recent (2018) Why Liberalism Failed? Parts of the post reminded me of it, specifically one school of libertarianism not recognising social duties or moral limits to behaviour:
(Why Liberalism Failed. Yale University Press, 2018. 99–100.)
He later cites Tocqueville’s ‘beautiful definition of liberty’, an excerpt from a speech by John Winthrop, Governor of Massachusetts Colony:
(Mather, Cotton. Magnalia Christi Americana. Hartford, 1853. 127.)
Deneen’s book is a critique of both schools of liberalism: modern (l/w) liberalism and ‘classical’ (r/w) liberalism (going further than the post’s author’s criticism of one school of libertarianism), and thus has drawn qualified praise from both Left and Right, l/w reviewers relishing his criticisms of ‘classical’ liberalism but taking issue with his criticisms of modern liberalism, and r/w reviewers vice-versa. His questioning the Whig principles underpinning Western society is all the more remarkable for his being a whitebread conservative.
That was very well thought out, Scotched. Well done. 🙂
A little side note on how truly deranged progressives/neo-maoists have become – the desire to implement gender pronoun policies at GOOGLE:
https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/03/googles-anti-harassment-training-they-pronouns-a-problem/
I knew several people – silicon valley veterans from chip and system companies – who got hired by google 10 years ago. There was a tremendous need for them, as Google was trying to build out its server farms and had very stringent cost and performance specs. They couldn’t implement them without people who had lots of talent, experience and drive.
All those veterans that I know have since left. Now I understand why.
Side note #2 on how progressives/neo-maoists are now completely unhinged:
https://twitter.com/NonKompisMentis/status/1146506773614006277
I’ve been seeing this build in the MSM ever since Trump GEOTUS won in 2016. The neo-maoist/cultural-social marxist left is building a narrative. The above is simply the latest example, and the most severe I’ve seen.
Keep your powder dry. I’d say it’s a 100% probability that murderous civil disturbances are coming once the left loses on 11/3/20. The only real question is what will be the magnitude.
Side note #3.
I don’t see any way of bridging this gap. I wasn’t around during the decade building up to the civil war, but I suspect the divide was not greater than this:
https://www.imgoat.com/uploads/c8ce6abb3e/219056.png
TSW,
Perhaps you’re right about a coming conflict. If so it will be pushed for and instigated by the Left. They really really don’t understand something like that and they almost certainly would lose badly. The Right has the handicap of fragmentation, but the Left is doing an admirable job of uniting AND firing up the Right.
Oh tremendous kicker of Chalden crotches,
Like I said – it appears to me that conflict is now inevitable and unavoidable. This is not a wish; it is instead a perception formed from a conclusion on facts & observations.
This is worth a read:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/amos-pierce-patriotism-america/
Something that particularly caught my eye, in light of the Betsy Ross flag contrived moral outrage and the infantile & spiteful critiques of DJT on July 4th:
YOU DO NOT PROFANE WHAT IS SACRED TO A TRIBE UNLESS YOU WANT WAR.
The left – at least at the level of the ‘intelligensia’ in the MSM and the neo-maoists of the dhimmicrat party, along with their acolytes/useful idiots in the form of SJWs, Antifa, BAMN and so forth – appear to be very energetically seeking this result.
I suspect we’re going to see firearms sales grow again in these next 19 months after a very steep decline stemming from DJT’s election victory.
On the bright side, it offers an investment opportunity. 😉
TSW,
The election is still a ways off and the Dems have already offered everything under the sun for free. They’re in grave danger of having nothing to buy votes with, though I have high hopes they’ll come up with something.
They might use Mussolini’s strategy.
In the 1920’s, Italy was falling into civil strife and chaos. People were frightened.
Along came marxist-inspired Benito Mussolini with his ‘fascie nere’ (black armband) enforcers to restore order. Not understanding what the fuck they were getting themselve into, Italians flocked to him and his party won national elections.
Once they took power, Mussolini became a tyrant, enforcing dress codes, nationalizing industries and reaching out to control every aspect of political, social and economic life, with secret police acting as sadistic, murderous enforcers.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the Left tries this trick again.
Like I said – keep your powder dry.