Posts Tagged ‘libertarians’

Inner Values Versus External Values

Sunday, November 5th, 2017

Some years ago it became clear that the Right was divided between fiscal conservatives and social conservatives. The former group were essentially classical liberals who wanted low government intrusion and decisions to be made by the open markets; the latter believed there were values above what socialism or capitalism could address, and argued in defense of culture, heritage and hierarchy.

This situation became more complicated because most social conservatives agree with the basic idea of fiscal conservatism, namely capitalism with small government, but believe that something else must be added above it. As many have observed, any single thing given absolute power tends to re-arrange what is under its power so that it can increase that power.

In traditional civilization, leaders attempted to unite each society around the central principles of its culture as expressed in aristocracy, caste, religious customs, and learning, with those then regulating the markets and social behavior. Modern society inverts this by placing markets and social behavior above that inner social order.

With the rise of the Alt Right, this debate continues to play out, with Hans-Hermann Hoppe taking a middle position:

If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts or more precisely physical clashes would be impossible.

…Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, conflicts regarding scarce resources can only be avoided if all scarce resources are assigned as private, exclusive property to some specified individual or group of individuals.

…The peaceful cohabitation of neighbors and of people in regular direct contact with each other on some territory – a tranquil, convivial social order – requires also a commonality of culture: of language, religion, custom and convention.

He comes short of recognizing race-culture theory, which holds that culture has a genetic basis and also shapes the genetics of the population in a feedback loop, but points out the duality of conservatism: it relies on self-organizing systems like capitalism, but also requires defining an environment for those systems, and this works when done through innate and inner traits like culture, heritage and values but turns totalitarian if based on elective traits like ideology.

One attempt to synthesize the two comes from propertarianism:

The physical universe, at its lowest level, consists of a market, just like our own markets, wherein humans are just a very complex (high) scale, across multiple hierarchical markets, each of which consists of symmetries, produced by the limits of operations – just as man is limited by his physical, emotional, and intellectual operations that we call ‘actions’.

When we operate by markets we operate in harmony with the physical universe – meaning the lowest possible friction – and we fulfill life’s purpose at the highest extant level of symmetry, wherein all life serves the purpose of defeating entropy. As such we defeat entropy by the incrementally fastest means possible.

…which also includes some aspects of traditionalism:

We had the Best System of Government (Perfect Government) and we blew it:

1) Nomocracy (Rule of Law by Natural Law of Torts: Reciprocity)
2) A Hereditary Monarchy as Judge of Last Resort, and custodian of territory, institutions, organizations, families, and individuals….. A State(Foreign Relations) Organization, …. A Professional Military, …. A Professional Judiciary, and …. A Treasury of Last Resort.
3) A Market for Commons consisting of:…. Regional Nobility(Persistent families) serving as a normative Supreme Court …. A House of Industry(Commons) for those with responsibilities….. A Church Serving as a House of Labor and family.
4) A Local (Democratic) Polity(private partnership) of Property Owners…. A Militia and Sheriffs…. Voluntary Civic Organizations
5) The Nuclear Family. And Family and Nation as subject of policy
6) The Individual and Property as the subject of law.

In other words, it combines the formal and informal aspects of the republic that the founders of America intended, but grafts onto it the hereditary monarchy that those founders wanted but were afraid to formalize, knowing that it would again become a target of the Church and mercantile classes.

While this is a wonderful start, it needs enhancement, because it forgets the ultimate properties: intangibles like culture, race and heritage, which includes the history of a people that centers it within an identity. We need to be proud of our past and know we have control of our future. That can only occur if we stop relying on systems and instead build a civilization.

If we are going to use the property model, we should consider past and future to be properties as well in which all of us have a stake. These properties need to be curated at a level more intense than that applied to tangible properties because the intangibles cover a greater span of time and have more ultimate effect.

Traditionalism acknowledges this need. We cannot use materialism to enforce virtue; that method only works for the Left through its mental control of political correctness, where fear of saying the wrong thing leads us to alter our thoughts. We must acknowledge the non-material, namely the ideas that make the best quality of civilization, and elevate it above the tangibles.

Our other option is to face the emptiness of a market society

No, I’m not surprised. I mean, what binds us? What do we all have in common anymore? I think we have to think about that. I think this is — when I was a kid, even as we had laws that held us apart, there were things that we held dear and that we all had in common. And I think we have to — we always talk about E pluribus unum. What’s our unum now? We have the pluribus. What’s the unum? And I think it’s a great country. I think we, for whatever reasons, have made it our — some people have decided that the Constitution isn’t worth defending, that history isn’t worth defending, that the culture and principles aren’t worth defending. And, certainly, if you are in my position, they have to be worth defending. That’s what keeps you going. That’s what energizes you. … I don’t know what it is that we have, we can say instinctively, we have as a country in common.

Both Communism and capitalism have been used to create market societies. In each case, money is used to manipulate people into doing what those in power desire. Whether that money is distributed equally, making people dependent on the state, or unequally, making them dependent on their customers or employers, the result is the same: social control enforcing lowest common denominator standards.

People love materialism because, by eliminating the question of inner attributes, it makes all people equal which means that none can suffer a loss in social status because of the bad results of their actions. This is individualism, because it means that the individual is protected from the consequences of his actions.

The Left tries to hide this, and wants you to see “individualism” as the mental habit of caring about how your time (and thus, money) is spent and to want that time to be meaningful. This was expressed stunningly in an article about how identity politics as the result of confused identity:

“[T]hirty years of economic growth and technological advance that followed the Second World War,” he argues, combined with new geographic, institutional, and erotic mobility and led to a “hyperindividualistic bourgeois society, materially and in our cultural dogmas.”

Flush with prosperity and unprecedented new freedoms, we moderns, Lilla believes, went on to atomize ourselves: “Personal choice. Individual rights. Self-definition. We speak these words as if a wedding vow.” By the 1980s, such hyperindividualism coalesced into what he calls the “Reagan Dispensation,” which prized self-reliance and small government over the collective—thus marking a radical break from the preceding “Roosevelt Dispensation” emphasizing more communal attachments, including duty and solidarity.

…In this head-on collision of purported creation stories about sexual and gender identity that cannot possibly both be true, we see once more that the question Who am I? is the most fraught of our time.

…In Democracy in America, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of how democratic governance shapes familial relations, rendering fathers and sons more equal and closer and less hierarchical than they are in its aristocratic counterparts. If it’s obvious that a form of government can shape the family, isn’t it even more obvious that the first polity to which future citizens belong—the family—will shape the kind of citizens they become?

Our macro-politics have gone tribal because our micro-politics are no longer familial.

They forget that the 1980s were a response to the insanity of the 1960s, and that the “geographic, institutional and erotic mobility” was a result of Leftist policies designed to remove natural hierarchy within humanity. This caused the atomization described in the article, and that caused the rampant self-interest as people scrambled to escape the disaster before it dominated.

Ultimately, as in many things, de Tocqueville has the last word: without civilization acting as a larger family, including hierarchy, entropy wins as individuals seek their own directions, causing a crippling lack of unity which then creates atomization and the rampant self-interest which Leftists bemoan.

Our future lies in making inner values the essence of our society. A hierarchy of those with “force of intellect” and “force of moral character” provides a familial structure, fosters sanity and encourages fairness in judgments. While capitalism is a cornerstone of this, it is not the full story, which is why fiscal conservatives need social conservative ideas to make their “systems” work.

The alternative Right rises

Thursday, January 21st, 2016


This week, the phrase “alternative right” enters mainstream consciousness as the vested franchisees of the current system attempt to explain the dissent rising around them like a maelstrom. They wanted a handy phrase to describe the mostly young, post-libertarian conservatives who are supporting Donald Trump. Calling them racists and Nazis has failed, so there needs to be a new slur, and establishment conservatives and liberals alike would like to give the alternative right a bad name.

Most of them have forgotten the roots of the name alternative right, which finds its inspiration in the phrase alternative rock. Back at the origins of that term, it described music which could not find support in the mainstream but believed itself a legitimate inheritor of the role of rock music. In the same way, “alternative right” describes right-leaning thinkers who believe society has shifted so far to the left that truth cannot be told, so it needs a new medium.

This of course freaks out the mainstream conservatives. They are being told that, like most forms of opposition in a market, they have been bought out, and the conditions of the sale mean that they cannot discuss certain ideas. In particular, few will speak up — Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan being the most visible exceptions — to mention the logical fact that diversity cannot work, and that Leftist delight in it exists only because a Third World population is being imported to permanently skew the vote to the left. That the native population of the United States and Europe is being replaced is beyond what conservatives will discuss because they are unwilling to challenge the liberal Establishment.

The alternative right also speaks hard truths about democracy, namely that most people vote for short-term self-interest instead of what will maintain civilization, and that in groups people compromise on the lowest common denominator. Democracy does not work; the American Constitution was an attempt to limit it so that it would, but that quickly became overthrown. Now we live in a Leftist time and we are seeing the consequences of Leftism as our economies, environment and societies plunge downward into chaos, but mainstream conservatives have failed to do more than a token effort against it, collecting votes and money as The Opposition Party without opposing the core idea of liberalism — that all people are equal — at all.

Perhaps the biggest contribution of the alternative right is to mention the real elephant in the room which is the decline and fall of Western Civilization beginning with The Enlightenment™ and worsening as its ideas became more mainstreamed. The idea of human equality means that choices can be arbitrary because they are equal, which has the effect of banishing reality from the room. When the assorted fat feminists, minorities, lunatic liberals and apartment plankton millennials vote for Bernie or Hillary, they are unconcerned about the results of that act. They know what they want to be true and that is enough. Voting is wishful thinking. Naturally, with this mentality in place, the West has become unable to respond to reality and chases dreams and illusions instead of looking at hard problems.

Since the mainstream right will not mention these truths, and the Left and its enthusiastically compliant media will not mention them, actual conservatives needed another outlet. The alternative right draws together several groups — libertarians, paleoconservatives, white nationalists, New Right, neoreactionary — and unites them under the idea that our current way is dead and our conservative opposition will not stop it because it will not mention forbidden truths. As a result, there is great variation between alternative right beliefs. The leftist media and politicians will try to spin the alternative right as having “Nazi” or “neo-Nazi” origins, letting one trait speak for all others as usual, as will compliant mainstream “cuckservative” conservatives. Both groups are threatened by this outsider voice that accurately describes what mainstream politics will refuse to address.

With that in mind, we should look at some political definitions…

Useful idiots: These are voters who want to believe the least possible must be done to change anything because they are clinging to what they have. Useful idiots gush and drool over pacifism, anti-majority groups, revenge narratives and underdog success stories. Every enemy they want to believe is a friend, and every actual threat they wish to deny. UIs were originally a small group, but 200 years of liberal politics has increased their number and imported Third World peoples, who as a result of the natural selection they underwent back home, always support strong promises from government and forget when they turn out less than optimal.

Liberal: This is a deceptive word because liberalism is a spectrum from moderate Republican through full-on Communist and as power increases for liberals, they always drift leftward. Since it is a conformist ideology, it demands its adherents demonstrate it constantly, which they do by applying the same unrealistic theory — equality — in new and exciting ways. Thus liberalism always grows like a tumor, ending up in power, at which point it conveys the society into a Third World cultureless mixed-race population ruled by cynical tyrants. Liberals champion UIs by appealing to their fears and promoting them within the power structure.

Conservative: Originally, this meant those who conserved the best of the great ages of humankind, since humans have never changed in their psychology. Over time this became a defensive action to hold on to whatever recent past was less infected with liberal insanity than the status quo. As a substitute for stopping the decay of society, conservatives offer symbols of health — strong defense, growing economy and nods to theocratic ideas — but because the name of the game in democracy is having more UIs than the other guy, they reduce this to simplistic flag-waving. In addition, they attempt to woo liberals by being more liberal-like, and in the name of working within the system, generally give liberals whatever they want after a token resistance to keep the votes and donations flowing in.

Libertarians: These are people who have woken up to the fact that government constantly expands and does nothing well merely in order to justify its continued expansion, like a tumor. To counter leftism, they argue for extreme equality in the form of free markets, free association and freedom of contract, which would in theory allow people to exist with extremely low taxes and the ability to exclude ongoing social problems. Unfortunately, this does not appeal to UIs, and so this group forever marginalizes themselves, taking potential conservative voters out of the pool. It also suffers from the same problem as conservatism which is that it has not rejected liberalism, only tried to make a devil’s bargain with it, and the result is that any libertarian society will become Leftist at the first mass vote.

White Nationalists: It is tempting to understand these as a variety of conservative, but really they are a variety of liberal that instead of blaming the unbroken chain of terrible decisions made by democracy, foist the blame on one or more of the symptoms, usually African-Americans and The Eternal Jew™ (which they refer to as “The Jewish Question” or JQ). White Nationalists want the present world but with these others removed, but are generally content to keep well-behaved others like Asians around, resulting in hybridization and destruction of the white race. It is not surprising that most of these are trace hybrids from Southern, Eastern and Irish Europe. In addition, they serve an important role as bogeymen for the Left by acting out every Hollywood stereotype of Nazis, allowing both conservatives and liberals to drive the UIs closer to democracy by pointing out the craziness threatening from the wings.

Anarcho-Capitalists: Honest libertarians who feel no need to conceal their belief in Social Darwinism, AnCaps want a world without government ruled by business, figuring that the most competent in business will be more competent than mass-polling the UIs and apartment plankton. However, they forget that as long as the UIs exist in large numbers, they will buy products that flatter them, which will result in the return of liberalism and also massively crass commerce taking over culture. Some AnCaps, specifically the Neoreactionary wing, have tried to temper this with a belief in business leaders or other strong authoritarian presence, but generally believe this can be applied to small communities, forgetting that the vast masses surrounding them will simply vote to invade them and take their stuff.

New Righters: The New Right arose in France as a means of restoring traditional society without upsetting the much-beloved European socialist benefits system. To keep those two contradictory impulses in balance, New Right thinkers generally insist on strong centralized power, nationalism and a religious basis to society, forgetting that these external methods cannot be imposed without causing a counter-reaction, and that without the internal impetus to adopt them, people will merely work around them as they do most strong power. Nonetheless the New Right deserves credit for systematically dismantling arguments for liberalism, democracy, equality and multiculturalism, although only a small segment of the population can understand their theory-heavy writings.

Donald Trump voters: Anyone who wants Donald Trump as a President. This is a wide group, including mainstream conservatives, Tea Partiers, libertarians and yes, some from the alternative right, New Right and even white nationalist groups. Generally however, Trump voters are middle American types who simply do not want to be ethnically replaced and ruled over by Leftists, who have proved incompetent in every instance where they have seized power.

I hope this little summary can help our politicians and media differentiate the types of voters they will encounter.

What Bryan Caplan of Econlib fears you will read

Thursday, June 5th, 2014

Not to make too fine a point of it, but Bryan Caplan over at Econlib has removed this comment — from a blog post about why Steve Sailer’s refusal to denounce eugenics is scary — as “irrelevant”:

Why the fear of eugenics?

Most fears are unfounded:

As anyone who has raised animals or maintained a garden knows, some are stronger specimens than others. These are the ones you want to breed to improve overall quality.

The liberal notion of egalitarianism clashes with this with its view that people are each special snowflakes and all are important. The reality shows us that this produces a disaster where the crass, idiotic and criminal prevail over higher types.

Some fears are founded:

Eugenics as administered by government seems like a bureaucratic disaster.

The Nazis extended their eugenic program past its workable point [which was] Aktion T4 (retards) and its sterilization of criminals and perverts, and confused it with another doctrine, which is nationalism. We wouldn’t demonize them today if they’d simply deported Jews, Gypsys, et al. to their native lands and relegated homosexuals to a German version of Christopher Street.

The natural order of humanity is that the best rise, the bad are banished, and the mediocre get no help. This is compatible with both natural selection and common sense.

State-administered policy, however, is probably incompatible with both.

This is just here to remind you of the truth that we must observe:

Libertarians = Liberals

Their “hands off” approach to government involves economic and social control instead of direct use of power, but it ends up with the same result.

Caplan is a typical libertarian in that while he likes to advocate for a world beyond government, he creates a replica enforcing the same.

Recommended Reading