Saturday, July 12, 2014

Libertarian Nationalism Vs. National Libertarianism

Except for a quibble here and there, they seem to be pretty much the same thing.  I (and others) call it Libertarian Nationalism, while Vox Day calls it National Libertarianism. Whatever you call it, it's essentially a policy of realistic libertarianism, as opposed to the rainbow-unicornian view of the world that too many libertarians have absorbed from their progressive pals.

One of my favorite people has been going on about how opposing the free movement of people over our border is anti-libertarian. She is dead wrong, but she can justify it by taking libertarian principles to a ridiculous extreme. She is absolutely sincere in this, make no mistake about it, and is simply in the position that so many of us are, of not seeing the forest for the trees. Because libertarianism isn't a theory of reality. It's a political philosophy. And a political philosophy stops being useful the minute it begins denying reality in favor of philosophical consistency. And, in this border connection, reality tells us that open borders will change the demographics of the nation in precisely the wrong way for the furtherment of libertarianism. It will change it for the furtherment of liberalism/neoconservatism. And if there is any value to libertarian thinking, surely one of the first things one should do is take steps to preserve it, not drown it in a flood of barbarian hordes.

All our "American" immigrants, as Nancy Pelosi calls them, are pure poison to every tenet of libertarianism. They're not in a position to comprehend libertarianism, let alone adhere to its principles, and of course they're met at the border or nearby by M-13 organizers, social workers, and Democratic precinct committeemen whose purpose is not to acquaint them with the works of Rothbard and Rand.

Indeed, it can certainly be argued that we were a far more libertarian society before the wave of immigration of the latter 19th Century, when Europeans came ashore with all kinds of ideas about corruption and bolshevism and big government doing things for everybody. We went from the poetry of the Declaration of Independence to the doggerel of Emma Lazarus.

It's a good thing to be libertarian. It's a better thing to be right.

Anyhow, here's what Vox Day has to say about National Libertarianism. I agree with it. It's from his site HERE.


On libertarianism

Increasingly of late, people have been attempting to claim I am not a libertarian on the basis of my failure to adhere to one or another common libertarian shibboleths. Consider my purported heresies:
  1. I oppose open borders.
  2. I oppose free trade.
  3. I oppose female suffrage.
  4. I oppose "equal rights".
  5. I oppose desegregation.
  6. I oppose the incoherently named "gay marriage".
  7. I have observed, and stated, that sexual anarchy is incompatible with traditional Western civilization.
  8. I have observed, and stated, that female education is both dyscivic and dysgenic.
  9. I support the right of free association.
These positions are obviously anti-libertine, but are they truly anti-libertarian? I don't see that the case can be made if one considers the actual definition of libertarianism rather than various dogmatic policies that have somehow come to pass for the philosophy itself. From Wikipedia:

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, free) is a classification of political philosophies that uphold liberty as their principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgment. While libertarians share a skepticism of authority, they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling to restrict or even to wholly dissolve pervasive social institutions. Rather than embodying a singular, rigid systematic theory or ideology, libertarianism has been applied as an umbrella term to a wide range of sometimes discordant political ideas through modern history. 

All of my supposedly anti-libertarian positions are based on the idea of maximizing liberty in a society based on Western civilization. So, far from being anti-libertarian, I would argue that my National Libertarianism is more in keeping with the true concept of libertarianism than all the various dogmas that are libertarian in theory, but in practice have material consequences that are observably anti-human liberty.

The end may not justify the means, but the end is the only correct means of judging any social policy. Intentions and hypotheses and flights of fancy are all equally irrelevant. In the end, one can only look at the policy and decide: does this advance or detract from human liberty in this particular polity.

4 comments:

  1. Ummm... Why don't you just call yourself a Neo-Con? Why try to make reinvent something that already has a label... It's like me saying I'm a liberal, but I hate big government, Keynesian economics, taxing the rich, yada yada yada... Nationalist Libertarianism doesn't make sense, not because some of us don't want a government, but because Nationalism is so damn contradictory of libertarianism, it's stupid to even pretend like you've got libertarian principles. The term National Socialist went so well together because they're both rooted in a deep dependency of the state...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. National Libertarians (Natiotarians? Conservatarians?) do not support bombing countries or serving foreign interests because they create refugees who will inevitably undermine free markets and create socialist states. We must also remember that a lot of Neocon policy is simply paying lip service to conservative/libertarian policies such as those he stands for.

      Delete
    2. Neocons are globalist warhawk cucks; in other words at odds with both nationalism and libertarianism. Are you sure you know what nationalism is, or have you been pozzed by the self-flaggelating left for so long you lash out instinctively against anything that advocates pride of your culture and solidarity with your people?

      //The term National Socialist went so well together because they're both rooted in a deep dependency of the state//
      Spoken like someone that has no idea what NatSoc or nationalism entails and invoking Godwin's Law on top of that. Please fuck off back to reddit.

      Delete
  2. Put otherwise, you're being empirical rather than relying on faith in "principles".
    Good post.

    ReplyDelete