Radish nails libertarianism’s race problem

Libertarianism had its one brief shining day in power in alliance with the anti racist, anti slavery brigade, was swiftly kicked out of that alliance, and has been beaten over the head with race stick ever since, despite endlessly begging to be allowed to renew the alliance.

Since then, the only times it has ever gotten anywhere is in alliance with the “racist”, aka white, faction.

19 Responses to “Radish nails libertarianism’s race problem”

  1. GC says:

    Personally, I’m against democracy unless it’s restricted to those who contribute more in taxes than they take out in benefits, which would pretty much render the vast majority of “progressive” parties unelectable and cures a whole host of other evils, too. If it affects members some races more than others, that’s too bad.

    With regard to the article, perhaps the following question needs to be asked: If mass third world immigration is causing a problem, what is the incentive for mass immigration in the first place? It’s certainly not an emergent pheomenon, because we can see a clear pattern in the “countries of choice” for immigrants. They tend to have the following characteristics:

    – They offer expansive, mostly unconditional welfare and wealth redistribution schemes that an immigrant is more likely to use and benefit from than the native.
    – They practice “multiculturalism” and operate programs that favour particular ethic groups at the expense of others (i.e. affirmitive action, “reparations”).
    – They’re democratic, with parties that have an incentive to encourage mass immigration (i.e. they want to flood the country with people more likely to vote for them, such as the British Labour party).

    Hands up all the libertarians in favour of expansive, unconditional welfare and wealth redistribution…


    Hands up all the libertarians in favour of programs that favour particular ethic groups at the expense of others…


    Hands up all the libertarians who think encouraging immigration from places with long traditions of tribalism, militant Islam and other ideologies hostile to liberty is somehow going to benefit the libertarian cause…


    *sound of large quantities of straw being swept up*

    You’ll have to excuse me for not being convinced that the content of Ron and Rand Paul’s failed attempts to appease the Cathedral are noteworthy or carry any more relevance than that of a forced confession to a crime. And don’t get me started on the Ayn Rand part. Her views on race, like her views on homosexuals are of no importance to her philosophy.

    Notice that the relatively libertarian far eastern countries like Hong Kong don’t have this third world immigration or “racism” problem. They don’t have the above characteristics, whereas Europe and America does.

    • jim says:

      Bryan Caplan.

      Bryan Caplan is in favor of unlimited immigration. The vast majority of illegal immigrants coming to California have no interest in getting jobs. The women are here to live off welfare by spawning bastards, the men hope to live off their girlfriends. Should they fail to live off women, they will reluctantly live by part time work, part time crime, food stamps, part time hunting and gathering – hunting cats and gathering from dumpsters.

      • Hidden Author says:

        I live in California in a rural region but even I haven’t heard of Mexicans living off cat meat. Sources?

  2. Thales says:

    Libertarianism might work if there were only white people.

    • Peter Blood says:

      Libertarianism might work…

      Keep on dreamin’ that dream!

    • jim says:

      Libertarianism works for people that are virtuous and have long time preference, or in a society that rewards virtue and punishes wickedness composed of people who are smart enough and have sufficient long time preference to respond to such incentives.

      It is, however, unworkable for the substantial majority of humanity. So you need an elite that is internally libertarian, but externally authoritarian and repressive – what the puritans of the Victorian era called “hypocritical”.

      Capitalism for the superior, socialism for the inferior, as, for example, the Singaporean Health care system.

      Also, libertarianism does not work for women, especially fertile age women. In the ancestral environment, a women’s rational self interest was to avoid having children, childbirth being extremely painful and dangerous, so evolution tended to select for deeply irrational females. So the elite needs to give its own fertile age women child status, and non elite women get child or slut status, depending on behavior. Its profoundly dangerous and self harming if women get unrestricted sexual choice. They are maladapted to make such choices for themselves, and need firm parental guidance.

      Thus a libertarian ruling elite needs to be primarily male.

      • Hidden Author says:

        How do you square this emphasis on male prerogative with being a Sarah Palin fan?

        • jim says:

          I see no contradiction. I am also a fan of Margaret Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth the First.

          Charles the Hammer is famous for leading armies in the field, winning against great odds, and creating the institutions of feudalism and the Holy Roman Empire. Queen Elizabeth the first is famous for wisely allowing able adventurers to lead fighting men. Had she attempted to lead men in battle herself, feminist style, she would have been an idiot.

          What makes Sarah Palin great is that she is clever with expressing thoughts, at making ideas into memes, a characteristically female ability. We reflexively, and without being consciously aware of it, expect greater verbal fluency from females, and lesser verbal fluency from blacks. The orgasms that so many progressives got from Obama’s speaking was not that his speaking was great, but that he could speak like a white male of rather ordinary intelligence – thus he greatly exceeded their expectations.

      • Thales says:

        “Thus a libertarian ruling elite needs to be primarily male.”


  3. Zach says:

    Radish has some fantastic essays. Glad I was introduced to them here.

  4. Alcestis Eshtemoa says:

    Apologies if I derailed the thread. I sometimes do that and am trying to curb this habit.

    • jim says:

      If you succeed in derailing the thread, you must be providing entertaining free content.

      The only stuff I censor is spam, and people who complain that the blog contains evil thought crimes without attempting to explain why the contents are evil or should be thought crimes. (The blog is supposed to contain thought crimes, so such complaints are as lacking in interesting content as spam)

    • jim says:

      Sounds like some of the guys had trouble remembering whether they had sex with her either. What do you bet that she is black also?

      • Alcestis Eshtemoa says:

        Is she black? Maybe. Maybe not. But probably isn’t.

        If there is black-on-white rape in the USA, it’s mostly black men doing it on white women. But they are always excused or camouflaged under names such as “young people”, or their pictures are there but not their racial/ethnic description (which seems to be the case here).

        The accuser is probably a white American woman, since the one of the most vicious accusers against white American men tend to be African-American women, think Duke Lacrosse case with white athletes and a black female stripper, which not surprisingly turned out to be false rape altogether. There was the whole black woman who accused former IMF head French DSK of rape, but it turned out be false too.

        Contrary to African-American female billionaire Oprah Winfrey and the whole white man-on-black woman rape scene in the film “The Butler”, white men just aren’t interested in black women (most black women in the USA are West African).

        Some Middle-Eastern Arab and White European men are interested in and marry/have children with East African women though (who have Caucasoid faces/bodies and are yellow to brown in skin tone). I’ve heard that the reason East African women look the way they do today is because Arab men raped them repeatedly centuries ago.

        • jim says:

          If there is black-on-white rape in the USA, it’s mostly black men doing it on white women.

          Firstly, I much doubt that this was rape.

          Secondly, of course there is a lot more black men raping white women than white men raping black women, partly because blacks are more criminal, but largely because white women are nicer looking, However, there are more black men raping black women than black men raping white women.

          • Alcestis Eshtemoa says:

            Firstly, I much doubt that this was rape.


            However, there are more black men raping black women than black men raping white women.

            Great point. I think my brief stay in the USA a few weeks ago muddled my senses and has made me a tad hysterical as of late. They showed continually in the mainstream media biracial women (mulattas) swirling around black dudes and I felt a bit disgusted by it.

            Now this may seem contradictory, but I’m a foreign young woman who speaks Portuguese and unfortunately from a black male/white female union, which was probably staged and came into being because of USA intervention since it isn’t common in Portuguese-speaking circles (most of the other families like my parents are broken, divorced and the women “married down”, which created more problems).

            I feel like an alien. I don’t like the USA, and I fit in with most Portuguese-speakers, but I don’t have white paternal ancestry like they usually do (I’m an exception). Go figure.

Leave a Reply