Monday, November 12, 2012

Mad Analysis: My Problems with the Libertarians


Ever since the Presidential election in the United States, everyone, particularly on the “right” has been trying to explain it and diagnose the reason behind the defeat of the hapless Mitt Romney. And, if one is expecting to find people behaving with reason and common sense, it certainly calls for a thorough investigation. After all, never in the lifetime of most voters has a President been reelected when unemployment, the debt, the deficit, gas prices, food prices and general cost of living have been so high. Looking at the numbers, one would think that the Republicans could have nominated anyone and still coasted to an easy and overwhelming victory. Since Obama has been President, more people are unemployed and more people are having a harder time making a living if they do have work. So why did he win? More people voted for him than Romney. Simple. But why? Blacks voted almost uniformly for the President, Latinos voted overwhelmingly for him as did single women in spite of the fact that these groups have suffered the most during his first term. If one expects to find a rational reason for that, you are going to be searching for quite a while. The reason, it seems, was because Romney seemed worse. True, unemployment is worse among these groups but because of that they still voted for more of the same because more of these people are receiving government assistance and were told that Romney was going to cut off the government gravy train (which of course he could not do so long as the Democrats hold the Senate but, again, common sense has nothing to do with this). Some have blamed the Republican message while others have blamed the ability of Republicans to “sell” their message. Balderdash!

Some eminent Republicans have said that Hispanics are the key and that the GOP should embrace the idea of amnesty (with border security) to win over Latino voters. They are wasting their time. In the first place, this has been tried before and the left will never go along with increasing border security. However, if Latinos were most concerned with this they would have been more reluctant in voting for Obama considering that he has deported far more illegal aliens in one term in office than George W. Bush did in two. And why are these Republicans talking about attracting Latino voters rather than Blacks? Probably because (aside from considering them a lost cause due to the overwhelming loyalty Blacks have for the Democrat Party) this would reveal the stupidity of their position. If they think amnesty will win them long-term Latino support they should look to Black Americans and remember that it was the Republican Party that abolished slavery in this country and yet Blacks still do not support Republicans and so we have the ironic picture of the first African-American President of the United States belonging to the same political party as the late President of the Confederacy. Did Blacks defect to the right when Herman Cain was running for the top job? Did they get behind George W. Bush for appointing the first Black Secretary of State or did they embrace the Republican Party for George H. W. Bush appointing only the second Black Supreme Court Justice? Every time, “no” and if they think they will no longer be seen as the “racist” party by embracing amnesty they have another thing coming.

The left, of course, says what they say after every Republican defeat which is that the conservatives could win if they just dropped all that conservatism. What I find most entertaining though is the extent to which the Libertarians are saying the exact same thing. Since the election I have seen a parade of people from the Cato Institute and Reason magazine blaming the GOP defeat on their clinging to traditional moral values, immigration control and the “war” on drugs. Meanwhile, they are cheering the fact that Colorado voted to legalize marijuana and that several states voted to legalize gay “marriage”. Further, they bemoan the fact that conservatives will not drop their opposition to abortion and gay “marriage” in order to join with the libertarian throngs in saving the country from economic ruin brought about by the big-spending left. So, in other words, give up your deeply held beliefs to help foster our agenda. Again, much like the Democrats. Aside from the condescending nature of such an argument, one problem with that is the priorities of these libertarians. The argument also betrays the extent to which even the good ideas of libertarianism are often overtaken in their own minds by their most ridiculous arguments.

Can't you leave me alone BEFORE you take over?
Gay “marriage” is a good example. If the libertarians really believed in what they claim, they would not be championing so-called “marriage equality” but rather for an end to all government involvement in marriage at all and an end to all benefits for married people be they gay, straight, polygamists or any other perverse combination. This really pains me because, as the national debt becomes higher and higher (and it is already to the point that I doubt it could ever be reasonably expected to be paid off) the libertarian argument is increasingly more likely to be the only possible solution. Yet, they want conservatives to abandon their values and come to them in order to unite on fiscal issues rather than themselves giving ground on narcotics and homosexuality to save the national economy. It seems ridiculous to the point of hilarity to me that it is the traditional right that must make concessions rather than the libertarians on the social issues because each side agrees that the current economic trend leads to disaster but by libertarians refusing to compromise on their moral positions they act as though they think these are somehow as important as the fiscal crisis. Can they be serious? Countries will certainly go to ruin if they spend more than they earn but I have never heard of a country going to ruin because there was not enough sodomy, abortions or drug use going on.

Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson
Demographics do matter, partly because demographic change is permanent change. Laws, policies and regulations can all be repealed (though they seldom are) but once a population has changed it can never be changed back. This matters to the political race because the left has, for some time, controlled the culture, the media and the education system and have successfully branded the Republican Party as the party of racism and there is nothing the GOP can do at this point to “prove” they are not racists -and God knows they have tried. Take a look at the Bush cabinet or the last GOP convention which was essentially a parade of minorities, and women minorities better still. Because of the success of the left on this branding campaign, and because immigrants are more likely to depend on government benefits (as are single women -yes there is a pattern here) they tend to vote Democrat. Go down the list of ethnic groups; African-American, Hispanic-American, Jewish-American, Arab-American, Asian-American, Native-American: they all tend to vote Democrat. The Democrats realize this, which is why they oppose any effort to enforce immigration laws or secure the border. Rest assured, if Mexican-Americans voted the way Cuban-Americans have in the past, the Democrats would have built a border fence on our southern frontier to dwarf the Great Wall of China.

The left, the party of government dependency, therefore has always embraced the ideal of open borders because they know it means more and more people who will loyally vote Democrat no matter the circumstances. Here again though, I marvel at the libertarians of the Cato Institute and Reason and so on for making the same argument. Their belief in absolute individual liberty is such that they too want open borders even though this has resulted in more and more popular support for the very government programs these same libertarians claim to most oppose! But, unlike the conservatives of the GOP, they will never change because it is a matter of principle to them and they see no distinctions when it comes to their principles of the “self” above all. That is why, apparently, they see the fact that some states refuse to condone homosexuality as just as big a problem as the fact that the USA is $16 trillion in debt and almost half the population depends on the government to some degree. I will repeat, there is a great deal I agree with libertarians on even though I could never be a total one, mostly because, like most political groups, they would not have me even if I wanted to join them.

Legalize and regulate -even though they oppose regulation
Again, I think the libertarian ideal of a “wall of separation” between economy and state is rapidly becoming not just a better solution but the only possible solution. However, fundamentally, I could never be a total libertarian because I do have some attachment to my own people, I do regard tradition as important and, most fundamentally, because, like Thomas Hobbes, I think that if left totally to his own devices the life of man would be, “nasty, brutish and short”. I agree with them on most of their economic ideas, I certainly agree with them when it comes to the debt and the dollar and I totally agree with them when it comes to private property and their opposition to socialism and communism. But I cannot agree with them on everything and I cannot agree with their priorities. For example, they think all narcotics should be legal. Having seen the damage drugs can do to people (and not just the people who take them), that scares me a little but I see the merit of their argument. However, I would never, ever go along with legalizing drugs until the welfare state was abolished because I don’t want to be saddled with paying for the 24/7 care of a population of drug-addled wretches. I have never understood why the libertarians do not first devote themselves to abolishing the welfare state and THEN campaign to legalize drugs. Well, maybe I do, because a great deal of their support comes from pot smoking college kids. Similarly, why fight for “marriage equality” instead of getting the government out of marriage altogether which would result in the same thing anyway?

Another problem I have with them is national security. And, again, it is not that I disagree with their position as much as I disagree with their priorities. In most cases, I agree with them that the policy of interventionism has been a disaster but I could never adopt their position while they also adhere to the open borders policy. Right now, a major concern is the nuclear program of Iran. They don’t care if Iran gets the bomb but I do. However, I do specifically because of how open our borders already are. If Iran got the bomb right now there is still no way they could directly harm the United States. They have no missiles to stick it on that could reach America and they have no bombers that could get close to America without being shot down. But if we adopt the libertarian policy of open borders it would not be terribly difficult to get a “dirty bomb” into the country and wreak havoc. In fact, the whole “War on Terror” would never have been an issue if the USA had simply taken greater care about who is coming into the country and what they are doing while on American soil. None of these terrorist groups control any ballistic missiles, tank divisions or long range bombers. They can only attack America by getting inside and hijacking a plane or setting off a bomb. If America had real border security none of these terrorists could ever touch the United States at all. I have often been eager to tell the rest of the world to fight their own battles but I cannot go along with the libertarian position so long as they refuse to stop potential enemies overseas and at the same time refuse to allow the military to guard the borders at home.

You know, if you voted in a state that mattered...
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the issue of abortion, something I will never support nor even tolerate at all, period, no discussion. Not all libertarians support abortion (I know Judge Andrew Napolitano does not, God bless him -and I also salute him for having the courage to point out that FDR manipulated the US into World War II by provoking Japan -not a popular truth) but every major libertarian institution that I know of does and certainly the people at Reason and Cato I have seen on TV do. I understand why they do, because they believe in absolute individual rights and the absolute inviolability of the “self”. An individual woman has every right to an abortion if she wants one just as, in the libertarian view, she has every right to prostitute herself if she wants to. When it is all about “me” and a pregnancy would be detrimental to “my” happiness, abortion is perfectly acceptable. However, at the same time, this libertarian position puzzles me because they also claim to be all about individual responsibility (and I am certainly in favor of that -all the way). They say they want personal freedom and personal responsibility. However, abortion seems to me to be the total negation of that position.

Consider it like this: we live in a world where women have access to every variety of artificial birth control known to man (and the shrinking population to prove it). So, other than in the event of a rape (which are thankfully relatively rare in the United States) if a woman is impregnated it is because she made a decision and exercised her individual right to have “unprotected” sex or chose to do something that would interfere with her clear thinking (like getting drunk) and as a result made a bad decision and ended up getting pregnant. It does not seem at all ‘libertarian’ to me to then allow this woman a medical “bail out” from a situation she willingly got herself into. Of course, I also believe it is the murder of an innocent child but I’m assuming libertarians do not, otherwise they would apply their principles to the individual rights of the unborn child. But even from their own perspective, I do not see how supporting abortion is in keeping with their devotion to personal responsibility. But then, that half of the equation often seems to be neglected doesn’t it? They favor allowing drug abuse without first eliminating the welfare state that would force drug addicts to be responsible for their own actions and they support abortion even when rape is not a factor which allows people to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions. To me, that just seems crazy. But, it would, being … The Mad Monarchist.

(Note: Libertarians may not leave angry messages in the comment box below telling me what a horrible person I am but please, whatever you do, don't click on the "libertarian" label below and read any of the other articles I have posted on the subject in support of various libertarian positions or it just might cause serious damage including brain injury to you. -MM)

34 comments:

  1. I'm not a libertarian, and might have preferences for authoritarian conservatism (see Singapore), but there are certain libertarian positions that are reasonable, such as calling to reduce the size and reach of the state into people's daily lives. Neither is "open borders" necessarily a libertarian position.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with them on private ownership being superior to collective ownership (I don't know why any monarchist wouldn't) and on respect for private property, de-regulation and pretty much any government intrusion on my life when I am not in public. I also agree that the state should not spend money it doesn't have and tries to do far too much. I realize many libertarians have their own ideas (they're individualists, it should go without saying) on things like abortion and the border and so on but I am going by what I have heard the major libertarian institutions say and what the official platform of the Libertarian Party is and that includes the line:

      "Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders."

      I'm also not totally onboard with the absolute, 100% in any and all cases free trade either. There are some regimes that I consider pure evil and do not think anyone should trade with.

      Delete
  2. You're right here, I've always thought that libertarianism must be implemented all at once or not at all, a piece-meal libertarianism would create a greater disaster than socialism...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dr. Ron Paul (a closet Libertarian in the GOP) and Judge Andrew Napolitano are two Libertarians I support. There are some positions I disagree; but, both gentlemen make a lot of sense regarding limited government, fiscal responsibility, individual responsibility, foreign affairs, and private property and ownership. Too bad the Electoral College did not elect Dr. Paul to be president, which, by the way, it could have. Oh well...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Other than the issues above, I would agree with both of them (though as I said, I believe Napolitano is pro-life) on probably the majority of their government and economy positions. However, while I salute their counrage and honesty in pointing out certain uncomfortable truths, this very quality would preclude them from ever being elected president. You cannot call men like Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt "tyrants" and be elected president in the United States. It just won't happen. The fact that they are perfectly correct makes no difference; the mob doesn't want to be confused with the facts.

      Delete
  4. MadMonarchist, I agree with you on pretty much every point you made about Libertarianism, except the economic argument. Now I wholeheartedly support the idea that a state must live within its means but the Robert Nozick argument of libertarians on the economy would create problems. I don't think a night watchman state would be very beneficial. Even economically. God knows I disagree with their social stances, particularly the legalization of drugs and prostitution. If those are not clear indicators of near future societal decay I don't know what are. That being said a libertarian stance on economic issues would not be as good. It would simply open up doors to all sorts of abuse if you tear down every single regulation. We have basic social regulations, there must be basic economic ones as well. I believe it was Otto Von Bismarck a very socially conservative man that enacted Europe's first "welfare state." Of course his welfare state is nothing like ours. No welfare queens in his state looking for handouts. You worked for your social safety net then. Unlike today where minority unwed mothers have kids on purpose to gain welfare checks. I don't think there's anything wrong with a Bismarck like social safety net. Libertarians who follow Nozick's school of thought would object even to that. It is hardcore libertarians that support globalization and subsequently outsourcing of jobs, because to them that's the market acting the way it should. It's some sort of capitalist mystical mantra for them. Little do they know that if we stop outsourcing jobs we wouldn't have welfare. All those people on it would be working those factory jobs that were shipped overseas. Is it a wonder that the welfare state ballooned in America when jobs started to be shipped overseas? Not many folks on welfare in the 1950's. Because jobs were kept here. Libertarians would not interfere in shipping jobs overseas. To them that kind of interference would be anti- capitalist. I disagree, that interference is patriotic and the needed basic economic regulation. Keep the jobs here, through modest government regulations and you alleviate many socio-economic ills. Welfare spending would be way down, you can use that money on far more important things like paying down the debt or place it in an infrastructure bank. Societal ills would also be remedied. People with jobs are far less predisposed to use drugs and are more likely to keep the traditional family unit intact.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, as I said, that I have doubts about absolute free trade. But you touch on a fundamental difference about libertarians which is that any potential harm to the "nation" is not to be considered because they don't believe, when you get right down to it, in "nations" but only "individuals". I remember in the last election, the head of the Ayn Rand Institute saying that one of his problems with John McCain was his slogan "Country First" or something like that. They view things like "nation" and "country" as collectivist and thus something individualists should not care about or even oppose.

      Delete
  5. So, you're only selective when it comes to these things?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I only agree with what makes sense -I don't agree with everything. But if you'd like to actually be serious for a moment, it is a difference in the definition of right and wrong. Libertarians define what is right and whatever the individual wants and what is wrong by whatever would deprive him or her of their individual freedom. I, on the other hand, define right and wrong based on the rulings of a higher power.

      Delete
    2. But if you're not going to agree with them on even economic matters, why give them thought or credence?

      I mean nazism and communism have things that "makes sense".

      Delete
    3. Nothing about communism makes sense whatever and as for nazism, it's meaningless, it has no depth to it at all. I agree with libertarians on some economic issues (possibly even most) and the fact is that they are the only ones in the political competition at this point that are making those points.

      Delete
    4. When I say nazism and communism have things that "makes sense", I mean that anyone can find something in an ideology they are in agreement with. Someone can point out Fascism's appeal to order. Does that mean they would bow down to Il Duce or agree to their economic policies?

      From what I can tell, you only like the libertarian position of private property and the fruits of labor. That's about it.

      Let's be clear. Libertarianism is a vague term and many leftists lay claim to it as well. There are also a host of political ideologies that share your views fully both economically and socially. So for you, needing or giving credence to libertarianism for virtually anything is useless.

      Delete
    5. I don't know why you're so hung up on my giving "credence" to the libertarians -especially in an article listing my problems with them. If I list all the areas in which I do agree with them you'll certainly be put off that I'm giving them "credence" yet again. I don't know how that is exactly. I simply say, 'here is where I agree with them' and 'here is where I disagree with them'. No more, no less. In fact, I've said countless times on this blog that I don't go in for any political "ism" at all. I don't believe any human system will ever create a paradise on earth.

      And if what I am doing here is "useless" that's my own business and you shouldn't waste your time with it. If I am, it's my time to waste and not your's.

      Delete
    6. "I, on the other hand, define right and wrong based on the rulings of a higher power."

      And you're completely free to do that. What you're not free to do is create or reinforce legislation based on your arbitrary higher power to impose the word of your higher power on others who don't agree. Making laws that give people the freedom to do something which does not negatively impact the lives of their fellow citizens is not impeding on the rights of those who disagree in the same way the opposite is true. Because something is legal doesn't mean you have to agree with or partake in it.

      To say "My Bible says this is wrong so the law should say nobody can do it" is selfish and what's known as a theocracy. We don't live in a theocracy. If you'd like to live in a theocracy you're welcome to find any one of the many middle eastern countries which legislate in such a manner after converting to Islam.

      Delete
    7. Oh. My. Please tell me you're just pretending to be this stupid. Your first paragraph -utterly and demonstrably false. All legislation is about enforcing views on people who disagree. And, in a republic based on "popular sovereignty" you DO have to participate in everything that is legal because the government that authorizes it does so in YOUR name. And we also have things called anti-discrimination laws which FORCE the views of one group on all people whether they like it or not. Because of these laws, things like gay "marriage" laws absolutely impact others because if you don't believe in gay "marriage" and refuse to recognize it, you can be sued for discrimination.

      As to the second paragraph in this parade of ignorance, you need to look up what a theocracy is. You might also just try to exercise your puny little brain in contemplating the difference between enforcing a view of right and wrong based on religion as opposed to any other reason. You are right though, "we" don't live in a theocracy and never have -yet, SHOCKINGLY things like divorce, contraception, abortion, sodomy or going to a bar on Sunday were once ALL illegal. Hmmm... isn't that odd? Our laws were based on Biblical definitions of right and wrong, which you say is a theocracy, and you're really smart, but we don't live in a theocracy. Gee, that's a tough one, it's almost like you don't know what the word means.

      The bottom line for me is that any society that cannot agree on the difference between right and wrong and good and evil is a society that will not survive for long. But if you think the world can be saved by more butt sex and abortions, you and your fellow geniuses are certainly well on your way.

      Delete
    8. MM, I'm a libertarian, and you're understanding of the libertarian definition of definition of right and wrong is incorrect. A libertarian does not (necessarily) believe that whatever the individual wants what is right. A libertarian believes that whatever the individual wants what is ought to be legal, so long as that individual doesn't want to violate the rights of another individual (e.g. murder, theft).

      A libertarian can oppose laws against X while also regarding X as immoral. Such a libertarian would likely support fighting X, while regarding laws against X as an morally unacceptable means of fighting X.

      None of this prevents a libertarian from defining right and wrong based on the rulings of a higher power.

      Delete
    9. I don't see where I argued contrary to that. Right and wrong doesn't come in to it because that's all up to the individual. My argument above was with libertarian priorities and inconsistency on the responsibility issue.

      Delete
    10. I was responding to your "Yes, I only agree with what makes sense" post, not to the article itself. My point is: A libertarian's view of wrong, assuming he's a libertarian for moral reasons, does include that which violates an individual's rights, but it isn't necessarily limited to that.

      On another note, I found your website about a month or two ago. I'm an American too (Virginian specifiably), and unusually for an American I conceder Elisabeth II to be my queen (you didn't convert me, I was way long before finding your site). Despite that I'm not a monarchist, except perhaps in a lose sense of the term. I do support democracy, despite it's faults, in the Anglosphere (including America), and I'd oppose anything beyond a ceremonial powerless monarchy. The foreign nations on the other hand, can have whatever system of government they want as far as I'm concerned (as long as it's not communist or something). I have no hostility to the remaining absolute monarchies, and IMO it's dangerous for the entire world to be under the same system of government anyway. Even if I did believe that the entire world should be under democracy, I don't see democracy as at all incompatible with a ceremonial monarchy.

      Despite my (geographically limited) pro-democracy views, I think I understand your point of view (democracy certainly has it's faults), and I defiantly respect it. I'm defiantly a fan, actually I became a fan pretty quickly after finding your site. You're a vary smart guy, and you do some good work, keep it up. You remind me a bit of me, especially with what you said about reading books in Q&A 2.

      There is one opinion of yours I strongly disagree with, allot more strongly then you're I do with anti-democracy views. Regarding the American Revolution, I'm a diehard Rebel; tough I think I see you're point of view I could never be a Loyalist. I won't really get into why I support the Rebels, it would take at least a paragraph to really explain that. Suffuse to say despite our opposing point of views, I think they're both based in counter-revolutionary ideals; my pro-rebel ideology is probably very different then that of most Americans. I am no fan of the French Revolution. Also, my pro-Rebel ideology has almost nothing to do with any anti-monarchy stance of the Rebels (anti-George II yes, but not anti-monarchy); IMO the Rebels anti-monarchy stance has been grossly exaggerated anyway. I don't conceder you to be a traitor for your Loyalist views; at least no more so then I would conceder Americans with a Unionist view of the Civil War to be traitors.

      In closing, you're definably made me more friendly to the remaining absolute monarchies, and to a lesser extent monarchy in general; not that I was ever anti-ceremonial monarchy. It would be tragic for the remaining absolute monarchies to be lost, and I probably wouldn't have said that before finding your site. As I said the entire world should not be under a single system of government; you've reminded me of that, and be extension of the importance of self-determination and national sovereignty. Keep up the good work MM.

      Delete
  6. Very well stated, but didn't Lyndon Johnson, a Democrat, appoint Thurgood Marshall, the first black justice, to the Supreme Court?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah! You're right, I was just remembering Bush appointing Clarence Thomas. I'll have to fix that...

      Delete
  7. @MadMonarchist. That's exactly right. I think certain elements of the Libertarian movement and the Tea Party are outright anarchsits, given their views about nation states. It's as if they've read way too many Chuck Palahniuk novels or something. They remind me of the Spanish Anarchists in Catalonia during the Civil War. Except they were far left. I have a general disdain for anarchy, maybe because my nation Albania tasted its bitter experience in 1997. They believe in a nation of ones. One's own property should be a sovereign state. I like the saying "A man's house is his Castle." But that shouldn't allow folks to do whatever they like and disavow the nation they are living in. We all have obligations to the state and vice versa. At least it works in theory. That's why I'm quite weary of the Tea Party. They are diehard Republicans, and I'm not talking about the GOP. And total de-regulation of the market was never a part of tradionalist conservative societies, namely Monarchies. Maybe because for quite a while they practiced Mercantilism but even when they adopted Capitalism, it was not 100% de-regulations for the market. I think the sovereign rulers used their power to steer their nations economies' towards the direction they saw as beneficial to their citizens. This exercise of power was used sparsely but there never was a Tea Party like economy of anarchist de-regulation. That's why I feel there should be a non-private social safety net for citizens. Those citizens that want to invest in private social safety net enterprises should have the liberty to do as well.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I guess I am in the minority of being a Libertarian=Monarchist, see that a Monarchy leaves it's citizens be, treats them like adults instead of constant pandering and has policies for the good of the country.

    If letting 20 Million illegal voters into this country (while shifting the demographic leftward) than the Politicians are all for it. That is what I do not understand about some Libertarians, its THE LAW that should be enforced for the good of nation/culture, but isn't due to political correctness or worse political opportunism.

    We Libertarians and Monarchists have more in common than we do with Republicans, hell Dr. Hans-Hermann Hoppe helped turn me into the Monarchist I am today and he comes form the Libertarian Ludwig von Mises Institute.

    So we Libertarian Monarchists do exist!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do, and I do know of others, but most are not in the United States and they certainly don't make up the bulk of support for the Libertarian Party or any of the other organizations I have mentioned. Where most of these would part company with you, I think, is in the words you used - "...for the good of the nation/culture..." -they don't believe in such a thing. I do, but I do agree with them on not micro-managing the lives of ordinary people, sound money and sound fiscal policies, respect for private property, disdain for the mob and the idea that one should not punish success or reward failure.

      Delete
    2. The reasons I don't support the Libertarian Party are among those you have outlined above.

      I'm also in the minority of a minority camp of being TradCath, AustrianEcon, and Monarchist -- essentially the territory staked out by the late Kuehnelt-Leddihn. Small "l" libertarianism just strikes me as the sane and sensible result of applying subsidiarity to civil society.

      Delete
    3. I would agree with most of that. As I've written about before, if your simple definition of libertarianism is keeping everything in private hands and using contracts rather than state regulations then the Catholic Middle Ages were about as libertarian as anyone has ever been.

      Delete
  9. Mad Monarchist, I agree with you entirely. Libertarians fear the State (they are right to do so) and uphold the private citizen; however, most Libertarians in this country ignore the only form of government that is actually compatible with this view. A Monarch is essentially a private citizen, and is the ultimate expression of person-hood in a nation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very true. They advocate the superiority of the private individual over the collective in everything -except for the government itself. A rather glaring contradiction that I doubt most American libertarians even thing about.

      Delete
  10. Libertarianism is not compatible with monarchism or with traditionalism at all. Libertarianism is nothing more than the extremation of liberalism as exposed by stuart mill. I opose individualism and rationalism. Becasue the "pure" individual don't exist. Every person and every nation is defined by culture and culture is not "rational" but organic. You opose abortion or gay marriage, not because you have "rational" arguments against it, but because they are contrary to the values of your culture. Period. Rationalism in politics is the basis of marxism and all forms of leftism.

    One of the problems we have in america (north and south) is we don't have real right wing thinking. We are the descendents of traitors and we see old school liberalim (the first leftism) as "conservative. But liberalism is nothing more than a more diluted form of the same poison as marxism.

    And the economic doctrine of the libertarians have no future either. I support private property,and I'm against the nanny state, but that's it. Beyond that I opose capitalism, because is a burgueosie system who puts greed as the cardinal value of society, and is ecologically unsustainable. I am a supporter of aristocracy, and of a new form of feudalism.

    I think one of the most valuable economic proposition I have seen in the last years is the "Archeofuturism" of Guillaume Faye. One of the thinkers of the french new right. He proposes an echonomy of two speeds.

    So, i disagree with you in this one, Mad Monarchist. Libertarians are quasi-anarchist who are sworn enemys of tradition, and I don't support them at all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But I do have rational arguments against abortion and gay "marriage". The declining birth rate is proof positive that these things lead to the death of peoples. As for Marxism, there is nothing rational about it at all, it is based on idealism which is the opposite of rationality. It goes against human nature. Go to any daycare center and watch the babies; the first words they learn are "no" and "mine". Capitalism is certainly far from perfect but I will give it credit for at least being based on the facts of human nature; the desire of all people to keep what they earn.

      Delete
    2. Marxism, as a philosophy, is completely rationalistic, materialistic and "scientific". Andt that's why it is so wrong, and why is contrary to human nature. Because LIFE has many elements that transcends reason. Human beings are not simple robots and human comunnities are much more than mere economic machines. Something that marxism and all the other political doctrines of the "enlightment" (including liberalism) fail to understand. They have destroyed entire cultures (and the planet), in the name of artificial utopias made by "reason". So I have no respect for rationalim at all.

      And the fact that you support private property (and I do, completely) doesn't mean you have to support capitalism. I opose free market beacuse I opose globalization. You cannot preserve national identity and cultural values, in the context of the modern global economy. Economy needs to be smaller, and regional, and self-sufficient.

      Delete
    3. Marxism is as irrational as ideologies come -for the love of God, the whole endgame is that "history stops"! You can't get more irrational than that. If you know of something other than collective vs private ownership, let's hear it because I don't see how there could be anything else. Either you own what is yours or you don't. It doesn't mean you have to make a religion out of an economic system to say that one works better than another. If economies need to be "smaller, and regional, and self-sufficient" that's fine, but that would conflict with private property.

      How do you keep an economy "local" except by some higher power telling people that they cannot buy or sell beyond a designated area. Self-sufficiency is a great idea (we could always use more of that) but, again, it conflicts with an economy being local. You are going to need things beyond what you can produce in your immediate area. And if you tell me that I cannot sell my oil or natural gas to someone far away willing to pay more because my local area needs to be self-sufficient, you are going against private property.

      Delete
    4. Of course I believe in a higher power telling people that they cannot buy or sell beyond a designated area. That's why I'm a monarchist! I believe in authority. And I'm not talking about some made up economic system, but of economic systems well proven by history. I want an agrarian society, and that doesn't mean collectivism at all. That's the economic system of all the great civilizations of the past. A new kind of feudalism, if you like. Like I mentioned, Guillaume Faye proposes a economy ot "two speeds" in wich the vast majority of population return to a simpler way of life, and only a small elite have access to high technology.

      And restricting trade is not going against private property, is simply regulating trade. Private property doesn't mean you can have whatever you want. For example, I have the impression that you are against the legalization of drugs. And I don't think any of us would like to see nuclear weapons in the hands of common individuals, right? Proposing "absolute rights" for the individuals is simply absurd.

      And as much absurd as marxism is, is still a rationalistic doctrine, you like it or not. Every one of its elements is based in rationalistic analysis. Yo should read: "Rationalism in politics" by Michael Oakeshot, to see a great exposition of this topic.

      Delete
    5. You're a monarchist because you believe in commercial regulation ... okay, never heard of that before but, whatever floats your boat. When did I say an agrarian society was collectivist? And an "agrarian society" is not an economic system. Pol Pot's Cambodia was an agrarian society but I don't think you'd advocate something like that. However, listening to your list of wants and desires I can certainly agree that you are not being rational and I doubt anyone will ever accuse you of that.

      I tend to agree with Bishop Jacques Bossuet that one of the characterists of a tyrant rather than an absolute monarch is respect for private property and that all people are not slaves. It seems you do not agree.

      Return to a simpler way of life? How is that to be accomplished? Again, it sounds like Democratic Kampuchea (a case I am *very* familiar with) when soldiers emptied out all the cities and forced everyone to work in the rice fields. How do you keep people locked into this 'simpler life'? You would have to set limits on wages at least, otherwise someone might earn enough money to but themselves some technology to make their life easier and stop living the simple life.

      I'd ask more questions but I don't think it would do any good. By all means, prove your ideas well founded. I wish you the best of luck in this and will not expect to hear from you further as you give up your computer and internet access as you adopt a simpler way of life.

      Delete
  11. I have to say, one thing that has surprised me about this post dedicated to my criticisms of libertarianism is the number of people "disagreeing" with me as though I had just written an article praising it. Wasn't expecting that....

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...