On Libertarianism
and other silly flights of fancy
Out of the gate, I would like to plant my standard: libertarianism is the political theoretical equivalent of teenage angst mixed with the early twenties delusions of nascent superstardom. By this I mean it is a thoroughly incapable body of thought that has its adherents utterly convinced of its capacity to deliver utopia, and they all believe its moment in the sun is lurking just out of sight, over the hills in the land of perpetual golden hour handjobs.
Tall talk for a neo-Monarchist, I know. How dare I, and all that. Monarchy has an undeniable track record that runs the gamut of worst system ever to unparalleled methodology for organizing human creatures. In essence, this is precisely why I was forced to give up my AnCap fantasies and genetic predilection for Republics: monarchy is the simplest, easiest, most robust, most modular, most long-lived form of human governance method, bar none. It isn’t even close. Moderns in general and Americans in particular have a hard time accepting this because there has been a 300 year marketing/mind-control campaign to force them to be unable to even imagine monarchy as positive, much less consider it as an option. Think about it: if monarchy is so incapable, so unable to deliver goodness and flourishing, why does every generation require a Clot Shot tier campaign of intellectual inoculation as well as a Pavlovian entertainment regimen1?
But Libertarianism gets nowhere near the same level of invective or opposition propaganda. In fact, Libertarianism is basically encouraged through a very obvious reverse psychology campaign in high school, university, and entertainment media. It is basically a “containment ideology” for any man that might be susceptible to wrong-think and thought-criminality; if you are the type to read deeply, look hard, and dig down, you are quickly shunted towards guns, pot, and loose women. The only Republicans with any level of social cache are libertarian, which is a red flag the size and shape of Iowa.
I don’t think it is a mind virus of the same or even similar type as Progressivism, but it is abundantly clear that it poses precisely zero threat to it, otherwise it would be suppressed to at least the conceptual level of Monarchism. Libertarianism is a Liminal Political Theory. It is a necessary step for many men on their journey to becoming what they Actually Are. It is a layover stop, a juncture for a train change, one of those big “commuter parking lots” in the middle of nowhere. So, if treated properly, it should be a place every politically active/aware man is familiar with, but not a place to set up shop. This is why Libertarians are some of the most innocuous yet frustrating people to deal with in the realm of the political. Progressives and Liberals love them because they pose no threat and keep possible vectors for opposition contained and neutered, and Conservatives and Reactionaries loathe them because they are the political equivalent of a 34 year old son living in his parent’s basement.
The recent incident involving a satanic shrine in some courthouse in a place with a bunch of birdbrain white people is a really good example of why Libertarians suck. After years of Radicals trashing our country, destroying our history, spitting on our culture, and preying on literal children, every single Libertarian was the first out of the Higgins Boat to attack Christians and defend the people that will gleefully throw them into FEMA camps.
Another good example was how quickly Libertarians jumped into bed with BLM when they were torching the businesses and neighborhoods of blacks and Liberals that weren’t deemed loyal enough to the Radical Agenda in the 2020 Summer of Love. Parenthetically, I remain flabbergasted by the number of otherwise seemingly intelligent people who don’t comprehend that the BLM riots were the Radicals punishing Liberals for insufficient faith in the Wholly Progressive anti-Religion. Indeed, this is yet another rotten fruit of Libertarian ideollectualism. You can always count on Libertarians to attack Good people on behalf of Bad people with a moral superiority complex roughly equivalent to an islamist suicide bomber blowing up Muslims for Allah.
OK, that’s a whole lot of hatred jam packed into a few paragraphs. Hopefully I got the vitriol out of my system2 and can now make a coherent and reasonable case against Libertarianism3.
Libertarianism is a set of beliefs predicated upon the idea that human nature can be both utilized and suspended concurrently and to arbitrary and varying degrees. The libertarian framework lays out a set of prescriptions and proscriptions dictating conduct, and the assertion is that if everyone follows them to the letter and equally, the whole system will work to benefit all adherents equitably and in perpetuity. There are two aspects of reality that annihilate the conceptual framework, one is external and one is internal.
The external aspect is that no matter how well the system can conceivably perform, a single agent from outside of it with a non-aligned configuration has the option of destroying it by attacking it in a manner beyond the capacity of allowable responses, or by subverting any single element to betray the others for whatever reason. Picture a Libertarian country that spans California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Arizona. They have all the resources to be an autarky4 and the population is fully on board with the whole setup. Everything is coming up Millhouse, hurray for Libertaria! Then some invading force arrives.
Of course, the Libertarians unite to face this external threat with unity and strength, right? Maybe, if the threat is a ghoulish mass of Chinamen screaming and spitting as they charge in relentless waves. What if it’s just a bunch of Chinese people with no weapons and only the clothes on their backs, yearning to be free to overcharge for low quality items in corner stores? There will be elements that want to fight, and elements that don’t. In the latter category, there will be negotiators and traitors and cowards. At some point, the Chinese will find these groups and make them offers and deals that will either sideline them or array them against their former comrades, and Libertarianism as a political framework is powerless against this. Even if you had the optimum demography for cohesion5 there will always be a standard distribution of competencies and capacities which inevitably results in a hierarchy of hierarchies. By its nature and construction, Libertarianism has precious few options for compelling behavior. The Chinese will win, whether by force of arms or weight of numbers. The same goes for any competing governance structure on the landward side of Libertaria. Be it warlords & their hordes or Caesar & his legions, they will chip away at the fighters and peel off the negotiators, inevitably smothering or absorbing Libertaria.
The internal aspect is the fact that if any member of the community violates prescription or proscription, the only options are to create a mechanism that disincentivizes the activity(s) or mercilessly cull the violating member(s). So the Libertarians have to suspend their Libertarianism to maintain Libertaria, meaning the libertarian community has to incorporate at least one major unprincipled exception, thereby violating the entire ethical framework. If they are unwilling or unable to do that, then they have to scrupulously and totally commit ideological cleansing by culling the violators, thereby violating the entire ethical framework.
Libertarianism can only exist “on paper” as an academic construction. If it gets established in the real world, it dies the first moment things aren’t perfect. Thus, there are four outcomes of a Libertarian System:
It is destroyed from the outside by a smarter or crueler or more organized entity
It ceases to exist as a Libertarian System because it requires a non-libertarian, or anti-libertarian, apparatus to enforce the prescriptions and proscriptions
It ceases to exist as a community at all because the inevitable outcome is a single libertarian, staring into a mirror, holding a gun to his own head, waiting to punish the inevitable infraction when it occurs
It makes contact with reality and transmogrifies into a workable system.
All of the above demonstrates that Libertarianism is a less capable version of Progressivism. By far more circuitous routs, it culminates in precisely the same place: negated from within by the necessity of Cromwellian means of enforcement, imploding in a purity spiral of ceaseless purges effected by the purer Libertarians against the not-as-libertarian, or dominated by groups actually in touch with reality.
With all of this being stated and affirmed, I feel duty bound6 to say that… well, maybe I was a bit excessive with some of the invective. Most Libertarians are doofuses, wankers, wasters, and morons, and the whole ideollectual framework is a collapsing waveform that only exists conceptually. But there are wonderful people that inexplicably remain libertarian. I encountered one the other day:
The above is an excellent interview between two intelligent, affable gentlemen discussing interesting matters of import. Mr. Smith repeatedly and doggedly avows his Libertarianism, much to my chagrin, and his polite and erudite affect casts a harsh light on my elaborate confabulations regarding the nuisance of Libertarians in the political discourse. And he is not alone, there are easily dozens of others who are right in line with him. But the ugly fact remains that these exceptions prove the rule, as exceptions always do7. Libertarianism does not work because it cannot work. It is nothing more than an academic tool for, very rarely, finding methods of equitable coordination and, overwhelmingly often, performing magnificent feats of mental gymnastics to keep Bad people in power and Good people inert.
Notice: from pre-verbal age to the day before your funeral, the Cathedral has to constantly remind you that the Holocaust was the worst thing that ever happened to anyone, anywhere in the past and present and future, that white people are genetically inferior & mentally incapable & spiritually corrupted but also all powerful and holistically privileged, and that all brown people are at once the font of all goodness yet totally divested of agency when it comes to anything bad they allegedly may or may not have possibly done. You can argue any of these 3 general categories whichever way you like, but you cannot deny that literal trillion$ are invested in hammering these concepts home, and if that social programming were suspended for even a MONTH, the consequences would never be the same.
I did not.
Outlook uncertain…
au·tar·ky /ˈôˌtärkē/ economic independence or self-sufficiency.
130+ IQ White (classic)liberals; I don’t make the rules.
Love you baby, to the end and beyond
Otherwise, they wouldn’t be exceptional
I have often said that the only way that libertarianism could work is if it was imposed by a dictator.
Enjoyed this