Libertarianism

Most neo reactionaries are ex libertarians, or ex anarchists.

Indeed, if you are a feudalist you are not even an ex anarchist.  You are an anarcho capitalist who doubts that most people should be allowed authority in the anarcho capitalist system of enforcement and justice, or are likely to receive a substantial voice.

“I pencil” is a famous criticism of socialism, which shows how difficult it is to centrally plan a pencil.

The problem is made much easier by good fences – and the occasional armed rentacop and fierce guard dog keeping an eye on those fences.

The socialist looks at those fences and says “the fences are unproductive, and the guard dogs are not only unproductive but costly and dangerous. They also look unfriendly and uncomradely, they divide us. Let us therefore abolish them”

And then the socialist, attempting to produce a pencil, produces instead many miles of red tape and a severe pencil shortage, frequently followed by a gulag full of “wreckers” that he blames for the pencil shortage.

The fences and the dogs serve a purpose, that purpose being to subdivide big problems into subproblems small enough to be manageable.  Central regulation, on the other hand, bureaucrats claiming the power to meddle in what goes on behind fences, turns many small tractable problems into one gigantic mess.

Libertarianism works provided you have fences, and often enough you also need rentacops and vicious junk yard dogs to make libertarianism work. And it is the only thing that does work to make a modern economy function – apart from terror and mass murder, and terror and mass murder does not work nearly as well as libertarianism and fences.

Libertarianism does not work where you do not have fences. Public transport in America fails because of blacks. To make it work again, you really are going to have to send blacks to the back of the bus. Whites just will not ride buses with significant black ridership, for excellent and glaringly obvious reasons that no one dares mention. You wanted integrated buses, got buses with no white ridership.

Similarly “integration” was in practice black workers in Detroit riding on the backs of white workers in Detroit, shortly followed by the dispossession and ethnic cleansing of whites in the inner city and Detroit.  Detroit’s car industry failed because they were forced to treat productive and unproductive workers alike and were forced to hire unproductive workers.  Ayn Rand depicts this, without, however, mentioning the overwhelmingly predominant race of the unproductive workers.  When Detroit was thriving, she accurately predicted its future as a desolate ruin, abandoned by all civilized people.

If you have blacks and whites in the same classroom, the blacks are very much louder, take up more space, and are dangerous and threatening, disrupting education and forcing the white kids into submissive roles.

Further, the kind of discipline required to make it possible for blacks to learn in a classroom is a lot more severe than the kind of discipline required to make it possible for whites to learn in a classroom. Few blacks are capable of learning without being whipped. Successful black schools are harsh, and the harsher they are the more successful.

And of course, at a certain age, the blacks are into, or have completed puberty, and the black pupils are man sized and able to beat up the teacher, while the whites have not begun puberty, or have scarcely begun it, and are still child sized and still behave like children.

And if you have twelve year old white boys and twelve year old white girls in the same classroom, the twelve year old girls are well and truly into puberty, and the twelve year old boys are not, creating a profoundly disruptive environment, though not as severe as that caused by twelve year old white boys, and twelve year old black adult men in the same classroom.

But the biggest failure of libertarianism, the biggest failure by far, is marriage and the family. Libertarianism is basically incompatible with family formation, children, and grandchildren, with the continued existence of whites and east Asians, for white and east Asian women are psychologically incapable of breeding near replacement in a libertarian environment.

The problem is that for a man and a woman to raise their children together, to provide their children with a mother and a father, they have to form one household, no fences. But if one household, then one captain. The man has to be boss. Further, they have to be stuck with each other for incentive compatibility. Consent to sex has to be once and forever. If consent to sex is moment to moment, then marriage is moment to moment, and you get serial monogamy, which means that husbands have no incentive to care for and nurture their wives, and wives no incentive to please and obey their husbands. Which means that women get their way sexually until they hit a certain age and become cat ladies, and men do not get their way sexually, and means that children have only one parent, and a lengthy succession of violent and abusive step parents.

A libertarian solution to marriage and the family would mean two separate households with visitation rights. A lot of people are trying that today, and it is not working. This stuff just fails. Broken families, empty buses, hellish schools.

If you cannot solve a problem with fences, guards, and guard dogs, the solution is unlikely to be libertarian.

34 Responses to “Libertarianism”

  1. Again says:

    I don’t know what kind of libertarianism you’re talking about. Rothbardianism, the type that I’m familiar with, is based on the idea that fences, rent-a-cops, and guard dogs can be exist and managed on voluntary bases.

    I think we all agree that when people are left to their own devices, they naturally divide themselves by race and creed. This is what H.H. Hoppe’s “physical removal” thing is all about.

    • peppermint says:

      ca. 1990, edgy dude Gary Johnson had an interview in edgy zine Playboy in which he said he wanted an open border with Mexico in which a truck from the US would pass a truck from Mexico at 60MPH, an edgy speed back when 55 was federal law.

      Libertarianism was always a hoax in which normal people get to signal against welfare and liberals accurately accuse them of dog whistling against niggers, while libertarian leaders are all liberals are the real racists lol. As Moldbug said, the active ingredient to the yellow pill was sugar.

      Sure, liberals are just anti-White now. ca. 1990 they were maybe still Quakers but at the highest level atheist universalist milenniaist utilitarians.

    • peppermint says:

      Who the h*ll is Rothbard? Are you some trotskyist double agent looking to smear Ron Paul? apparently the sixty million in the Black Book wasn’t enough for you

  2. Dave says:

    Much as I enjoyed “Atlas Shrugged” for its frighteningly accurate portrayal of politicians, I was less impressed with the heroine’s ageless hypergamy. Each of the book’s three parts stars a different man, each of whom is honored to be Dagny’s lover for that part.

    In all 1160 pages there are about three or four sentences mentioning children, other than the main characters remembering their own childhoods.

    • lalit says:

      Good Catch! Note that none of these industrialist Heros/heroines have children

      1.Howard Roark: No Kids
      2. Dominique Francon: No kids
      3. Gail Wynand: no kids
      4. Frisco D’Anconia: No kids
      4. Galt: no kids
      5. Taggart: no kids
      6. Mulligan: no kids
      7. I think you get the idea.

      In fact I dare a Randian to show me one positive character in Rand’s novels that has kids. Objectivism is a Sterile Philosophy.

      • viking says:

        ayn rand no kids

      • Dave says:

        There was one family in Galt’s Gulch that had two young sons. The book doesn’t even tell us the boys’ names.

        There were also a few children on that train that blew up in the tunnel.

    • viking says:

      wddya spect she was a broad

  3. Carrick, James says:

    The globalist corporatists and the Reason Magazine-istas have been, and are currently being, deeply schlonged by reality (and the bell curve.)

  4. Chris B says:

    The socialist looks at those fences and says “the fences are unproductive, and the guard dogs are not only unproductive but costly and dangerous. They also look unfriendly and uncomradely, they divide us. Let us therefore abolish them”

    Unless the centeal power is secure, undivided, and accepted by custom, then this is accurate. Not only will agents of power do this, but they will do it through high low. Not productivity. The dogs threaten minorities, the fence are exclusionary and anti-LGBT etc. This is the big flaw of “the right.” If you are not advocating some species of absolute governance (monarchy, sov corp, EIC) You don’t understand the game.

  5. Bruce says:

    I attended Florida public schools in the 1980’s and it was more like 12 year old white boys in the same classroom as 15 year old black men since the blacks usually failed two or three grades.

  6. Oliver Cromwell says:

    Describing banning free contract in the area of marriage as a libertarian policy seems rather uncharitable.

    • Gilberto Dorneles da Rocha says:

      “free contract” is a scam.

      Marriage vows are clearly for life, and they give prescriptions regarding the role of both sides.

      If you believe in contracts, you believe in following them, and you don’t believe they can be simply broken at will.

      Otherwise, can you give me a “Free loan contract”?

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        Free contract means the ability to make contracts that are enforced. You are arguing for free contract in your post, and I believe in free contract, so we both believe that it should be possible to make a marriage contract “for life” that is enforced “for life”.

        I am saying that Jim is being uncharitable describing disallowing these contracts as a Libertarian policy.

        I would argue that Libertarianism is the belief in all social arrangements, or as many as possible, being governed by free contract.

        • jim says:

          I would argue that libertarians shrink in terror from the potential for politically incorrect contracts – hence childlessness of Ayn Rand.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Ayn Rand was likely childless for the same reason many highly capable but plain-looking women are childless: she was not able to marry a man she considered good enough for her.

            She would probably have had kids with Nathaniel Branden, but was 46 by the time she met him, and he eventually ran off with a hot young actress.

          • Gilberto Dorneles da Rocha says:

            I doubt it’s only because she didn’t find a mate, it’s a common thing among libertarians.
            Mises had no kids.
            Rothbard had no kids.
            Milton Friedman had only David Friedman, who also has only Patri Friedman.

  7. Been trying to reach you for three days says:

    Please check your Skype messages or email.. I have tried for three days to reach you by email, phone at the house, calling your cell phone, Skype, and text.

  8. James Weaver says:

    I can vouch for the problems with racial mixing. I’m still am dealing with issues from seventh grade. I was a late bloomer so I went into seventh grade all 3 and a half feet of me and had to deal with PE with 15-16 year old black kids. Lets just say there was no racial harmony I had to deal with being the smallest person in PE class. It took me a long time to get over the hate. I also went to school in Florida in the 80s.

    • Bruce says:

      Most of the problems I had were with other white boys. Every fight I got into was with another white boy or, in one case, a Puerto Rican. The black boys never hassled me. I think this is simply because there was a great deal of voluntary, natural, de-facto social segregation between blacks and whites in my schools.
      I don’t know how things are now, though. We have sheltered our children through a combination of homeschooling, private schooling and hard-to-get-into public schools. Charter schools can be a good place to avoid diversity because diverse students and their families don’t want to do things like fulfill mandatory volunteer hour requirements.

  9. viking says:

    Yeah im kind of a natural libertarian fascist reactionary alpha sure i read and like rand but never got into the lib thing other than the economists as a “conservative” but when i found most libertarians wanted open borders i was astounded wtf property rights ? i guess they dont get what a state is they see it as a backdrop to a market i see it as a market participent its the property of the citizens and its contracted out to capitalists to use its infrastructure, criminal and civil justice structure and its labor etc. as such the capitalist can choose not to do business here as opposed to say mogadishu or they may choose to pay the dane gold for market access. they do not however have the option of importing cheaper labor or break any of the other contractual clauses.
    BTW Jim please go kick Lands ass

  10. Robert says:

    Stefan Molyneux is a good example. He has started to change from libertarian to Alt-Right. I think all clear thinkers go this way. Eventually he will support spanking children (and machine gunning Africans). The issue is most people are not clear thinkers (or don’t have time or resources to be one), and most people cannot be persuaded (or there isn’t time or resources to do so), so they must be forced.

  11. Libertarianism does not work where you do not have fences. Public transport in America fails because of blacks. To make it work again, you really are going to have to send blacks to the back of the bus. Whites just will not ride buses with significant black ridership, for excellent and glaringly obvious reasons that no one dares men
    —————–

    idk, it has more to do with suburbs and sprawl and cars being more readily available. People would rather drive because it’s more convenient.

    —————–

    But the biggest failure of libertarianism, the biggest failure by far, is marriage and the family. Libertarianism is basically incompatible with family formation, children, and grandchildren, with the continued existence of whites and east Asians, for white and east Asian women are psychologically incapable of breeding near replacement in a libertarian environment.

    ———–

    In our cutthroat dog-eat dog economy, this is true, but libertarians do not forbid it, unlike , say, Communism. Living expenses are so high and job prospects are lousy, keeping people from being able to settle down and start families.

    • jim says:

      Dirt poor people in societies where marriage is for life and wives are expected to obey their husbands have no problem breeding like rabbits.

      • Irving says:

        Yes, but those dirt poor people are at least stable in the sense that they’re expectations are satisfied and they don’t aspire to acquire anything more

    • Marcus says:

      Many of the European “Social-Democracies”, such as Sweden, have generous benefits and maternity leave for women compared to America, yet their native replacement rate is even lower.

      Economic factors, considered respective to peoples culturally-acquired hedonic expectations, may be a factor, but it is not the root of the problem.

      Subsidizing married women to have children does not work without solving the root of the problem. And to the degree which it does work, it tends to just subsidize unmarried women to have children, which is hardly desirable.

      Fix the root of the problem, and then we can talk about the economics of child-rearing.

  12. Mike says:

    I started out as an Objectivist, but over time have drifted away from the movement. I find great value in the principles, but I think most Objectivists don’t really follow them.

    For one thing, you check out the positions of the leadership and they are all for open-immigration and free-trade. However, at its core Objectivism is about being rational, paying attention to CONTEXT, and rational self-interest. The people we are allowing to flood our country do not share our values, and are harmful to the interests of the people who already live here. So how in the hell is it rational to advocate open immigration? In the present CONTEXT, such a policy is suicidal.

    Free-Trade, in the proper context, is win-win for both parties involved. However, China is still run by the commies, even though they pretend to be more capitalistic now. Since when does free-trade mean we should trade with statists? I mean, seriously, they put suicide nets outside the windows of the Foxconn factory in China to keep the workers from killing themselves by jumping out the windows. The government actively manipulates its own currency, fucking over their own people, in order to give advantage in exporting goods to us. How in the hell is doing business with these cheats rational?!

    One question that isn’t asked in Objectivist circles: Who typically are the net producers? Who typically are the net moochers, looters and parasites? Oh wait, lets not ask that question, because the answer is racist. Blank-Out.

    I largely credit my acceptance of the idea of white nationalism to the influence of Rand. Ironic, isn’t it?

    • Bowman says:

      Daily reminder that the suicide rate at Foxconn was slightly under 2 per 100,000 in its worst year, while China’s suicide rate was about 9.8 per 100,000.

  13. […] re-re-defined. Radical moderates. Futurism. Capitalism as last man standing. Nationalism eternal (and naturally recurring) — why Cathedralists fear it. Race on campus. […]

  14. Wombat says:

    Libertarianism is a joke. The guards with the dogs meet up on day one and by day two you’re living in a feudal monarchy.

    You want the punch line for the joke that is libertarianism? Here it is.

    You, me and everybody else? We’re living it right now. The people of every nation are free to do whatever they like. They use that freedom to support or submit to the structures of authority left over from yesterday. In few cases they use that freedom to become an outlaw.

    The libertarian is a butthurt child who thinks that if only we could dissolve the bonds of government then somehow the universe and the good will of all men toward all other men would magically prevent government from once again forming.

    Laughable? Pathetic? Take your pick.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      “Libertarianism is a joke. The guards with the dogs meet up on day one and by day two you’re living in a feudal monarchy.”

      If the guards had the ability to do this, they would not be working as guards.

      Their employers, or that subset of them who can cooperate to command other men, will meet up, and on day two you’re living in a feudal monarchy, with the guards as knights.

      So a good approximation to libertarianism is Restoration England, in which only male property owners could elect the legislature, in which there were only rentacops and no private police to enforce ordinary laws, and in which rebellion and sedition were policed by a militia composed of male property owners.

      Religious tests excluded the Left from both legislature and militia.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      *and no government police

  15. […] Jim has only two articles this week, but big ones. First up: Libertarianism. […]

  16. jack arcalon says:

    Was heartened a few years ago to read some of Ron Paul’s early race realist writings, but the subsequent SJW crackdown seems to have put the Libertarian Party in a bad spot.

    Amazing how much effort they wasted on appearing respectable without gaining a single vote in return.
    They are all about virtue posing, not winning.

Leave a Reply for Marcus