Moving Libertarianism Forward

Economics, Politics, Philosophy, History and Culture
Forum rules
Always add something of value to the discussion and have fun. Mind your language, no porn, no libel, no trolling and no personal attacks.

Please note, views expressed on the forum do not necessarily represent the views of Mises UK.
User avatar
Physiocrat
Site Admin
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2018 11:25 am

Re: Moving Libertarianism Forward

Post by Physiocrat » Wed May 09, 2018 2:03 pm

FvS wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 5:02 am
It would only be faux compromise, like how every politician says one thing and then does another when they are elected. Obviously, it would be important for the these mole candidates to be legitimate libertarians in close contact with the true leaders of the movement (Rockwell, Ron Paul, Hoppe, Woods, McMaken, Murphy, etc.). Third parties in America seem like a dead end. They almost never elected and certainly not for any really important positions. Actually obtaining power is more important than publicly espousing pure libertarian ideals, imo. With regard to the EU referendum, who knows if Brexit actually going to happen and meanwhile, immigrants keep flooding in. Here is some more on the neocon strategy.

https://www.nolanchart.com/article5423- ... rians-html
The idea is faux compromise but it will likely end up with strategically bad compromise, for example education vouchers. It provides a veneer of choice it will in practice subject independent private schools to more government regulation. Politicians want power which is the main reason, that unless you're in a more ideologically pure environment, you will be pulled by the tide. Further, many UK libertarians thought they'd made the breakthrough with Thatcher just to see the UK go under the thumb of banksters and corporations - we moved from Keynesianism to state-controlled capitalism, the neo-liberal paradigm which is effectively a latter day Leninist policy.
FvS wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 5:02 am
So either an attempt at radicalising the LP needs to happen or all the genuine libertarians need to leave and form a new grouping.
Well, if no one is buying the neocon strategy, I suppose your idea would be the only other thing we could do. The question is, how?
It's very hard to build up a party from nowhere. The UK Libertarian Party is ok but it is culturally too relativistic and not radical enough - they don't even advocate abolishing central banking. A genuine paleo-lib party could put the pressure on the Tories. A lot effort needs to be put into the name The best name I could think of which can't be that misinterpreted is Natural Order, which has the acronym NO which is somewhat unfortunate for a positive vision but isn't that bad.
FvS wrote:
Tue May 08, 2018 5:02 am
Yes, I do think libertarianism needs to cultivate its own aesthetic like Communism and especially Fascism. Hell, I bet half the reason many people are still NatSoc today is because of the imagery. Personally, I was always thought libertarianism and science fiction go well together, that whole idea of taking humanity to the next phase of our evolution.

Image

Image
Nice pics. I'm not sure that the sci-fi aesthetic will ever be that popular. People tend to prefer more natural materials.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.

Yours sincerely,

Physiocrat

User avatar
FvS
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 3:03 am

Re: Moving Libertarianism Forward

Post by FvS » Thu May 10, 2018 4:22 am

Physiocrat wrote:The idea is faux compromise but it will likely end up with strategically bad compromise, for example education vouchers. It provides a veneer of choice it will in practice subject independent private schools to more government regulation. Politicians want power which is the main reason, that unless you're in a more ideologically pure environment, you will be pulled by the tide. Further, many UK libertarians thought they'd made the breakthrough with Thatcher just to see the UK go under the thumb of banksters and corporations - we moved from Keynesianism to state-controlled capitalism, the neo-liberal paradigm which is effectively a latter day Leninist policy.
What I envision is hundreds of Ron Pauls at every level of government, in every party. Would Ron Paul have been as successful as he was if he had run as a Libertarian in 2008?
The best name I could think of which can't be that misinterpreted is Natural Order, which has the acronym NO which is somewhat unfortunate for a positive vision but isn't that bad.
I like that name a lot.
Nice pics. I'm not sure that the sci-fi aesthetic will ever be that popular. People tend to prefer more natural materials.
You're probably right. Unfortunately, it seems the Fascists/Monarchists/Traditionalists have that look cornered.
"Most whites do not have a racial identity, but they would do well to understand what race means for others. They should also ponder the consequences of being the only group for whom such an identity is forbidden and who are permitted no aspirations as a group." - Jared Taylor

User avatar
Tom Rogers
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:55 pm
Location: The Atheistic Pagan Avatars' Own County
Contact:

Re: Moving Libertarianism Forward

Post by Tom Rogers » Fri May 18, 2018 7:39 pm

If the aim here is to 'persuade' the public of a libertarian agenda, by whichever means, then the basic problem, as I see it, is that we are embroiled in a paradox within a paradox. We must become less free in order to become more free. Hoppe is right in principle but wrong in practicality: the solution to the existential threat is not more liberty, but less. This arises due to a derivation from Popper's paradox: in order to create and sustain internally tolerant societies, we must be externally intolerant. This leads to a double problem for those of us, including myself, who are desirous of more liberty. We must accept that illiberal policies must be applied to those who do not share a north-western European heritage - specifically, such people must be deported en masse and denied entry - and, in order to reach the point when we can even begin to apply such policies, we must pursue illiberal policies now.

The classical and modernist liberals think that liberty and freedom are rights and the inheritance of all, simply for being human. I contend that this is nonsense because it completely ignores the ontological nature of liberty and freedom. The question must always be 'Who?', as this brings us closest to what these terms mean. Who enjoys freedom? Who can take liberties? Without that qualifier, these terms mean nothing because if everybody can be free, that is to say, equal, within a given geopolitical space, then no-one is free and we are all equally slaves. Indeed, equality itself is a deeply illiberal idea other than when applied in contingent circumstances between people of comparable ability. Freedom itself implies the existence and enforcement of boundaries between people. At the simplest level, I have possession of property on which I am free and on which no-one else may enter without reasonable cause. Any freedom I have as such dissolves when the boundaries between me and an adjoining owner are removed, indeed we cease to be 'owners'. In short, freedom cannot exist on a plane. Therefore, to a reactionary liberal like myself, liberty and freedom are only rights contingently. To be enjoyed as such, they must first be earned, and fought for and defended continuously.

The truth is that none of us, including none of us on this Forum, deserve to be free. We haven't earned it. And the plainer truth is that we're not truly free anyway, we live in a plastic facsimile of freedom. Very few of us truly stand on our own two feet, only a miniscule number of Westerners can make that claim. The rest of us are dependents and akin to overgrown children.

The public will not understand any of this, and I would argue that it is even possible that most of the public are not inherently fitted to living in a free society. Consider my comments on the Rotherham thread, where I examine what I believe to be an exemplar of Western attitudes which involve a curious blend of statism, moral prurience and sexual licence. Moral confusion reigns in our society. That is why I think that, whether you are a nationalist like me or purely a libertarian perhaps with a conservative bent, there is a case for a metapolitical approach that involves seceding from the surrounding society altogether - indeed, that would be the optimal strategy. If I was being asked what to do next, then I would propose that we all move to some remote area of Africa, Siberia or South America, or wherever, and start again, perhaps initially as an all-male colony, then later, once established, taking on women in order to proliferate ourselves and grow.

But is that practically feasible? Are there sufficient numbers of hardy, determined, independent men willing to execute such a plan? It would be in the finest traditions of western Europeans to do this, but I doubt there are the numbers.

The alternative is to play at politics. Writing essays, and other manifestations of social, intellectual and cultural struggle, is not metapolitical. You have to do what I think Dr Gabb used to do a few years ago: go out on the radio broadcasts and fight in the trenches, issue-by-issue, point-by-point, in the hope that you may build up some sort of momentum that then leads to new political developments, either micro or macro. Alternatively, you could try to infiltrate the existing political parties or start a new party.

Post Reply