Why I left Libertarianism
As is the experience of many libertarians, my induction took place as an undergraduate. A period of relative freedom, tainted with the noxious fumes of Marxist academia is possibly one of the best incubators for the next brood of little randlings to-be. As an Economics major, the logic and reason of Friedman and the Austrians made them the undisputed intellectual giants amongst the rabble of Keynesian apparatchiks, whose faithful disciples printed money to pay for cockamied ‘stimulus’ schemes and bailouts as I was studying during the crash of 08/09.
The socially tolerant aspects also came easily to me. I don’t mind the homosexuals, let them ‘marry’, I told myself and the various girls I was courting, their heads nodding in righteous approval. I mean, more girls for me, right? Feminism seemed to be the flogging of the decomposed remains of what might have been a horse. Senior male colleagues started to mumble about the coming 50% female partner quota that would crowd them out in favour of less qualified candidates. Racism? These lecturers and managers at my school and firm were mostly Chinese, Korean or Indian. The three aforementioned groups dominated public selective schools and universities. Local kids just weren’t trying hard enough, after all, this is a meritocracy. Boatload after boatload of ‘refugees’ kept arriving. They’re desperate, and perhaps they can mow my lawn and serve as footmen at my cocktail party, I struggled to reason.
‘It’s the government’s fault’, as a catch-all, default response started to falter under the weight of the real world. Governments indeed are self-serving, violent, meddling and awful. They are involved in most of the destruction we see in the world around us. But to frame them as the only relevant agents responsible is one dimensional and naive.
Libertarians like to quote the words of the great H.L Mencken that ‘every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods’. Yet if this is the case, then how is any libertarian going to compete with candidates and ideologies that promise handouts, protection, public sector jobs and pork-barreling? By appealing to a higher moral ground, or arguing for economic growth? Both positions are outgunned by the left, who place the free-market proponents in the greedy capitalist bin, and take the moral high ground by championing direct transfers over the much reviled, ‘trickle-down economics’, the perfect straw-man if there ever was one.
Don’t get me started on Jeffrey Tucker and his ‘Libertarian Brutalism‘ nonsense. This won’t work. Cloaking libertarianism in fuzzy-wuzzy social justice and ‘F**k the man’ rhetoric isn’t a dilution, it’s outright corruption of the entire ideology.
Or is it? This brings me to what may be the most compelling point. Left-liberals blame ‘the man’ for their problems. Can’t get a job? Evil racist heterocispriveliged white males are holding you down. Environment is being destroyed? Evil racist heterocispriveliged white males are running corporations with voodoo dolls of Gaia that require daily torture to maintain their profits.
But Libertarians aren’t so different. Their version of ‘the man’ is just more specific, and is usually argued on more logical lines. Can’t get a job? It’s the governments fault because of the minimum wage/labor laws/affirmative action/evil meddling bureaucrat/tax collectors. Feeling sick and unhealthy? It’s because of government: water/healthcare/school curriculums/doctors/pharmaceuticals/whatever. It actually encourages an abdication of personal responsibility because everything is the government’s fault.
The strong will dominate the weak. This will occur in any and all social systems. The NAP (non-aggression principle), the ‘golden rule’ of libertarianism not only fails in its aims (the weak will always be dominated), but a society that purports to uphold this principle is pernicious in its own way, since it veils the true nature of human relations, and it is only the believers that are fooled.
Libertarianism is liberalism – being ‘classical’ just means that it’s less depraved than modern progressivism. Its core tenants are wholly compatible with the pathological altruism of Christianity that has given us the reverse-colonization of Europe, North America and the Antipodes.
Having grown up with Catholic and Orthodox parents and attended a Jesuit school, its philosophical basis in Thomas Aquinas’ famous ‘Natural Law’ also played into its apparent ideological consistency. Taking stock of my friends, family, school and workplace, I couldn’t see why a system of completely voluntary social co-operation wouldn’t work. It is ironically similar to a case of Bastiat’s seen and unseen. I couldn’t see the prison complex that, albeit expensively, kept the criminal classes at bay. I couldn’t see the hordes of third world sweatshop workers who provided us with cheap goods who would cause local wages to plummet, blow out welfare budgets and vote in more re-distribution if allowed en mass into our countries. I couldn’t ‘see color’ and its correlations with IQ, criminality and its crucial role in a healthy, functioning society. The limited scope of my own experience of the world confirmed the viability of anarcho-capitalism; as this scope widened, I began to see why its proponents are people ‘like’ me.
It relies on the ‘economic man’, a mythical creature who acts in his own rational self-interest, resembles a white middle-class libertarian and has an IQ of over 100, to make its society work. It requires the myth of ‘natural rights’ and human ‘equality’ to justify its moral argumentation.
Now for any libertarians who have made it this far, I offer this olive branch. I used to be like you. Your ideology seems radical, subversive, politically incorrect and ripe for our age of flagrant state excess. But think deeper about what you really care about. It’s not the NAP. It’s not theoretical musings on PDAs, ‘sovereign citizens‘ or states’ rights. What matters is your way of life. Your identity. Your people, your culture, your history and future.
Your ideology will not weather you through the coming storms for when the Feminist/Marxist/Globalists get into full swing. ‘Liberty from’ is a negative concept. Conservatism is also a negative concept, since it is the negation of the future. Since it is not ‘for’ anything, it is bound to fail. Here are the words of Julius Evola:
“..no matter how sincere the intention animating those who today attempt to revolt and to sound the alarm may be, we should not cherish false hopes concerning the outcome. It is not easy to realize how deep we must dig before we hit the only root from which the contemporary, negative forms have sprung as natural and necessary consequences[…]Some people “react”; others “protest”. How could it be otherwise considering the hopeless features of contemporary society, morality, politics, and culture? And yet these are only “reactions” and not “actions” or positive movements that originate from the inner dimension and testify to the possession of a foundation, a principle, or a centre. In the West, too many adaptations and “reactions” have taken place. Experience has shown that nothing that truly matters can be achieved in this way. What is really needed is not to toss back and forth in a bed of agony, but to awaken and get up”.
Revolt Against the Modern World.