Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Flaky Libertarians Again


Occam's Razor asks a question, and I try to answer it below.

Is libertarianism suicidal?

“Whereas much of American libertarianism may have been grounded in implicit whiteness, and movement is still implicitly white, it is gradually growing more explicitly anti-white than even the kind of conservatism advocated by The Weekly Standard.” ~ Gregory Hood

While there are some sound libertarians (e.g. Peter Brimelow, Hans-Herman Hoppe, and Murray Rothbard), libertarians seem to have high incidences of championing very dumb ideas, from school vouchers to open borders. In other words, while libertarianism might possess useful insights and even some useful curbs on governmental power, its natural gravity seems to center around HBD denial, extreme individualism and deracinated cosmopolitanism. Indeed, libertarianism today is becoming a self-parody from Cathy Reisenwitz’s war against “racism and patriarchal oppression” to Rand Paul‘s wanting to “win Detroit” and flood the USA with the Third World.

Is there any salvation for libertarianism? Although libertarianism might benefit small, cohesive cosmopolitan in-groups, will libertarianism always be detrimental to the larger, ethno-core of a host country? In general, is libertarianism a doomed, suicidal philosophy?
____________
The way he describes it, the only possible answer is "yes." (You can go to HIS SITE to take the poll.) Of course, what he describes is what I refer to as "flaky libertarianism." And that, you might say, is often worse than liberalism or neoconservatism, because if you're stuck with those you can at least hope for libertarianism.
Libertarianism as it ought to be is basically what the Founding Fathers agreed upon. Government sufficient for defense (that is, keeping other governments at bay), but no bigger than necessary. Mostly tacitly, the Founders wanted to keep the ethnic balance of the country. (Benjamin Franklin cautioned against too much German immigration, of all things. Imagine what he'd have thought of Somalis.) They were well aware that their libertarian ideas wouldn't last for a minute in an "ethnically diverse" country. So of course they were opposed to open borders. Some of them called for free immigration, but since all such immigration was coming from Northwest Europe at the time, they most certainly were arguing for our kind of free immigration.
And, of course, by modern standards, all the Founders were racists, because they thought that races differed (which they did, and do). This is a horrible thing to many libertarians.
So, except for a few hold-outs like me, libertarianism is basically a subset of liberalism. Some call this left-libertarianism, but it is actually just plain old liberalism of the Democratic Party variety, with a teensy bit more understanding of economics, and less of a tendency to march around the world starting wars. A bit less. I've put the relationship between liberalism and libertarianism in perspective HERE.
Liberalism is irrational and unscientific, and insofar as libertarians accept liberal principles, they're irrationala and unscientific, too. All this is why I gave up calling myself a libertarian, and call myself a libertarian nationalist. It cuts down on confusion.
---------------
Quibcag: The girl disgusted with left-libertarianism is Mouri Ran of Detective Conan (Meitantei Conan  名探偵コナ).
-----------
P. S. Great Googly-Moogly! Vulture of Critique has quoted my comments and added his own insights to the conversation HERE. To paraphrase John Lennon in A Hard Day's Night, I could listen to him blog all day.

2 comments:

  1. I understand immigration, but what is the objection to charter schools? To me it seems like an obviously better choice than failing public schools, even if you're a nationalist, since white students won't have to get bogged down by the inner-city curricula. And if you're a minority who wants to work hard, charter schools are good for you too. A lot of local minority groups were pissed off when DeBlasio shut down the charter schools last month (here in NYC).

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's not charter schools in question, but private schools. Read the link. He has a very good argument.

    ReplyDelete