Thursday, June 2, 2016

Keir Martland for... I don't know. Holy Roman Emperor? I'll sure vote for him!

Yes, I keep making the same point over and over again, I know. But I guess I have to. The fact is that, for a number of reasons, a great many self-identified "libertarians" are so contaminated with leftist thought, themes, and prejudices that they might as well be leftists. Effectively, of course, they are leftists, whether they know it or not. As I've said elsewhere, if you accept the leftist narrative, you're a leftist, whether you  consider yourself a liberal, a conservative, or a real conservative, like the David French bunch [link]. This is especially annoying with libertarians, because they think of themselves as so bloody perceptive. Actually, my wife caught on to this long before I did. We'd just been around a bunch of "libertarians" at a get-together in an unnamed location, and she said to me, "They're just like a bunch of 60's hippies — smug, stuck-up, and holier-than-thou about everyting." It took me awhile to see it, because I was blinded by all that neat Rothbard stuff, but of course she was dead right.

I don't know if it's the Atlantic Ocean or a greater acquaintance with literature, or a closer encounter with actual communism and fascism and other 20th-Century realities, or a simple matter of being better-educated in general,  but our British libertarian friends seem to be far less likely to bollix up their libertarian theory with a lot of groovy leftist hippy-dippy notions about egalitarianism and noble savages and spontaneous cooperation and multiculturalism and nurture over nature. They seem to me more realistic, and know damn well that results trump intentions. Hold that 'trump' thought.

I've pointed out that this is the case with the most prominent of British libertarians, Sean Gabb [link] and [link]. And it's clearly true of Keir Martland, who, in the quibcag, points out a very obvious and simple (to me, anyway) fact that seems to be the sort of remark that causes many American libertarians to screech "bigot" and "ignorance" just like their liberal sisters.

Well, Keir Martland is no stranger to this blog. Just enter his name over there in "search this blog" and you'll find lots of entries. And his blog is here [link]. And here [link] is a review of Keir's book by Sean Gabb again, which, if you read it closely and do the math, will reveal to you that, as of this writing, Keir is at most seventeen years old. Good Goddle Mighty.

And here Keir point out another fact that is obvious to me, but which seems to be a concept ungraspable to many American libertarians, who paradoxically see no problem with voting for gun-control enthusiast William Weld.

Quibcag: Nationalities represented by chibi versions of national mascots from Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア).


  1. The reason many on the 'right' tend to embrace libertarians (and libertarianism) is the classic communism/capitalism trope.
    Problem is (and something the 'right' hates talking/dealing with) completely unfettered capitalism is not (sorry Ayn Rand fans) an unalloyed ''good''.
    Just like guns aren't in and of themselves ''violent'', capitalism is not in and of itself ''moral''. An example is the ''legalize all drugs'' trope, if someone's growing pot out in a clearing in the woods, I could care less (providing they don't boobytrap the area, which many do) but if they've set up a clandestine meth lab out there, I do indeed care. Lab blows up, next thing you know, forest fire. Or, they dump the toxic byproducts on the ground, or a nearby stream, someone fishing a mile away eats the catch, gets sick. IOW, the tragedy of the commons. Which many libertarians don't give a hoot about.
    Same with 'immigrants'/'refugees' those who promote this stuff don't comprehend (or simply don't care) about the toxic side effects of what they tout.
    Such as, in this example, some random sicko is going to torch a ''refugee center'' at 3am with a bunch of people (and their keepers) asleep/unaware inside.

    1. Libertarians do care about the tragedy of the commons. There are extensive passages on its by Hoppe, Rothbard, Mises and Hayek.

    2. YIH said, "the tragedy of the commons. Which many libertarians don't give a hoot about." Which is very true. The ones you mention do care about it, but there's the many, who either don't care or don't even think about it, they're so enchanted with their new little paradigm.

  2. The debate on nature and nurture is only relevant to the future. Stefan Molyneux is a realist and he notes it would take two generations of "peaceful parenting" for a High-IQ race to achieve liberty (I won't argue here whether I agree).

    Even he has noted what we have is a bunch of cucks, the Masculine is locked in the basement, while a horde of barbarians are invading and raping and pillaging. Cucks and anarchists can argue if those peoples on the ground are the way they are from nature or nurture, but they are the way they are and not easily changed, they are here, and we ought to extinguish the fire before arguing what caused it.

    Libertarians would not say they could live among statists and fascists, they would insist they convert to being libertarian even if they didn't want to.

    The other inconvenient fact is diversity leads to conflict by its very nature. You can simply look to the generations before the Founding Fathers, all Englishmen, but there was first the Catholic - Anglican split (lots of beheadings, lest we think ISIS is new), then the other various nonconformist protestants. The New World was a set of colonies for each individual denomination. All Englishmen, but differing in theology.

    If such a homogeneous group were killing each other, how is adding people with different cultures, values, etc. going to work any better?

    The old saying, Good fences make good neighbors applies writ large. Every SF Libertarian utopia had either a nearly perfect shield or sword. Heinlein had a railgun in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. Rand had a camouflage shield so no one could find Galt's Gulch.

    Another saying about when supping with the Devil, one ought to use a long spoon also applies. Atheists and Libertarians don't believe in the Devil, but sadly, neither do most Christians, at least not in any practical sense. But whom does radical Islam worship?

    All God's children? Some are at best prodigal. This corresponds to the Libertarians' belief that Men are rational actors despite all evidence to the contrary. Or more specifically, in most men, reason is enslaved to the emotions that command it to figure out how to maximize pleasure and minimize, not to seek the good, true, and beautiful.

  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    1. This corresponds to the Libertarians' belief that Men are rational actors despite all evidence to the contrary. Or more specifically, in most men, reason is enslaved to the emotions that command it to figure out how to maximize pleasure and minimize I liked your blog, Take the time to visit the me and say that the change in design and meniu?

    2. Like many ideologies, libertarianism has such unspoken assumptions about the nature of mankind. And when such assumptions are wrong, the ideology doesn't work.