As the central defining issue of the left has become hating cis hetero white males and destroying capital, rather than hating capitalists and seizing capital, Libertarianism has become irrelevant.
Libertarians have responded to irrelevance by becoming evil. Tyler Cowen, who is arguably the primary remaining libetarian blogger, certainly one of them, just published a blog post that he does not care about Aleppo– this is the man who cares deeply that a billion black African Muslims are much worse off in Africa than they would be if they were allowed to come to America to live on welfare and crime and vote for more welfare and more crime, this is the man who is so much more moral than you are that you are worse than Hitler for not caring as much as he does.
We are under no obligation to worry about far away strangers hurting, particularly when they are being hurt by other far away strangers as is usually the case. We are, however, under an obligation to worry about us hurting far away strangers, particularly as if we hurt far away strangers and do not much care, they are morally entitled to defend themselves by killing us.
Aleppo is the result of a failed American effort to overthrow the legitimate and long established government of Syria. To this end, the American government sponsored a bunch of genocidal terrorists who intended to kill every Syrian Alawite and kill or expell every Christian and every Shiite of Palestinian origin. These foreign genocidal terrorists seized a portion of Aleppo, kept the civilian population hostage as human shields, and proceeded to lob mortars and rockets into the rest of Aleppo.
The reckless cruelty of progs in general and the American government in particular, with the extraordinary cheerleading of a mainstream media drunk with the blood of innocents, was steadily leading us towards thermonuclear war with Russia.
And this is the question on which Tyler Cowen decides he will not care.
Have you seen this Jim?
If it’s provenance is valid, what your writing about above is a rabbit hole deeper than most have knowledge of.
http://archive.is/IDBh5/image
It’s not.
Twitter disallows robots and archive.org respects it.
Ha! Actually it’s fake for a different reason.
Rudy didn’t have a twitter account – this was apparently an impostor.
Archive.is, however, does snapshot twitter so that might be helpful to know in the future.
Your comment strikes me as contradictory
He has a twitter account.
Namely, https://twitter.com/RudyGiuliani
The account in archive.is/IDBh5 is RudolphGiuliani, now suspended.
Only saying it is fake is not truth. What verifiable proof can you provide it is fake?
No blue check mark on the twitter account.
Giuliani doesn’t have to go to twitter to announce something like that and if he wanted it to be seen, he’d go on Fox for on a pretext then say that.
No one had ever heard of Giuliani’s twitter before this.
There’s lots of evidence that indicates lots of shady things are going down but this is a hoax – and promoting it gives people who are looking for excuses to not see the real evidence ammunition to ignore actually verifiable stuff.
Maybe such as your comments?
Which do not add up.
Is it not clear yet that smart people, en masse, believe stupid things? Seems to be a pathological problem of the human animal.
Natural low iq ingroup instincts are smarter at having a feeling for reality, than the smart people are at having accurate beliefs.
The Sunni insurrectionists against Assad (who is very bad man) needing no American incitement whatsoever, they are fully capable of hating Shias and Christians and whatnot to the death on their own.
So as a non-American with some Middle Eastern experience, I think there is no reason to lay this at America’s doorstep as far as first causes for the Syrian mess are concerned. That’s not to say that Obama’s feckless policies didn’t make things worse later than they had to become.
Now things have taken on quite new dynamics of their own, with the US, due to Obama, not currently in a position to influence them significantly. So just stay out, and let’s all enjoy on two sets of bad actors slaughtering each other, while at the same time staying prepared to thoroughly crush the ultimate victor once he turns his bloodlust on us.
What makes Assad a very bad man, other than defending himself and his Alawite kin against enemies who intend to murder them all?
The Assad repression long antedates the start of the “Arab spring” insurrection against him. His regime has always made sure, with ruthless effectiveness if they considered it necessary, that no effective dissent was possible inside Syria.
Note that by this I’m not saying that his repressive regime is the ultimate cause of the insurrection: In the regional and international climate prevailing some years ago, the Sunnis might have tried their luck with toppling him anyway. But the repressive nature of the regime likely gave an additional impetus and a feeling of increased urgency and legitimacy to the revolt, even in the eyes of (at the time) moderate Sunnis.
Also during the conflict, he has committed unnecessary excesses: widespread torture of prisoners, chemical weapons.
Given how things stand now, I too still prefer a (weak) Assad regime over any currently possible alternative. But that’s no reason to have any illusions about the man.
1. This is not true. He allowed the ngos, whose business is dissent. In this, he was way too tolerant, perhaps because he was trying to appease the State Department.
2. In the middle east “dissent” usually manifests as burning churches, crucifying Christians and raping females of minorities – in particular such suspiciously pagan minorities as the Alawites.
“Dissent” in Syria took its usual middle eastern forms, and as we have seen, unless you crack down hard, it tends to take those forms even more so.
“What makes Assad a very bad man, other than defending himself and his Alawite kin against enemies who intend to murder them all?”
Allowing Iranian support for Hizbullah through Syria, of course.
The US is still arming and funding Islamic State in Syria.
While your specific assertion strikes me as implausible (funding Islamic State? Really? Other “moderate” misfits, yes; but IS?), I never said that Obama policy toward Syria was anything but misguided, even stupid, and likely made things worse during the conflict.
All I ever said that the first and initial causes for the Syrian situation are intra-Syrian. Those folks don’t need external stimuli to act crazy and violent.
This just is not so. The revolution started off not with terrorists, but with ngos (state department employees) playing at revolution. Of course these people needed some real muscle, and were palsy with real muscle, which is to say real terrorists, and the real terrorists came in initially as mercenaries, but of course rapidly became the masters, while still remaining on the payroll.
You know how supposedly moderate Muslims tend to be mighty pally with death-to-america-gimme-seventy-virgins Muslims.
So the state department was initially paying moderates to play at revolution, but pretty quickly found itself paying genocidal totalitarians to make real revolution, and was, and is, in denial about what happened.
Personnel is policy. All their real moderates skipped out of Syria pretty quickly, within a few months of the start of the revolution, to take international cosmopolitan proggy jobs around the world, caring deeply about refugees, raising female self esteem, stopping the oceans from rising, and suchlike, and the state department found itself pumping money and arms to a pack of genocidal totalitarian mass murdering terrorists.
The terrorists are not from Syria and their weapons and money certainly aren’t, and the ideology that drove the insurrection wasn’t either.
As usual the Bible already answered the question of whom we owe obligation, from Luke Chapter 10
25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?
27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.
28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.
29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?
30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.
31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.
32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.
33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,
34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.
35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.
36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?
37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.
Jim, I agree Tyler Cowen and the rest of the “Beltway Libertarians” are completely worthless and already assimilated to leftism, but I think it’s a bit extreme to claim this is representative of the entire libertarian movement.
Ron Paul and the Rothbardian / Randian wing of the libertarian movement in general is still sound. Most libertarians I interact personally have sensible positions on border control when welfare still exists, feminism, democracy, etc (may be biased due to my influence). Keep in mind neoreaction developed off the base of Rothbardianism, as Moldbug has acknowledged many times.
Do you really think the left has given up trying to control the economy and wealth? I would say the reason they switched to race and gender issues is to better attack capitalism, expand the state, etc. Libertarianism is still highly relevant given that many alt rightists are actually “alt leftists” and still think Sweden would be good without the Muslims, which is disastrously false and arguably worse than Bryan Caplan. While most Libertarians definitely need to move right on race and gender back to 19th century classical liberal positions, I think alt leftists definitely need a lesson on economics and other issues.
“Do you really think the left has given up trying to control the economy and wealth?”
Today’s left is made up of people who take wealth for granted. They don’t want to control wealth, they want to spend it. They don’t want to own the golden goose, they want to slay it. The words “means of production” aren’t heard today, because in the mental model of today’s left production doesn’t exist.
Pdimov, I agree. What I am pointing out is that economic issues are far from being “irrelevant.” If Jim’s hoped-for Trump coup happens and all that results is white welfare recipients instead of NAM welfare recipients, I don’t consider that a huge improvement. The goal is to get rid of all leftism, not just Brahmin leftism. Today’s whites and Asians are pretty degenerate compared to the early 20th century and this will worsen unless something is done.
Economic issues will never be irrelevant in the same way gravity will never be irrelevant. But that’s not the point.
Libertarianism was useful as a counter to the left when the left was about economic issues. When leftists were supposedly holier by virtue of siding with the poor against the rich, libertarianism and objectivism supplied a counter-ideology in which it was right and virtuous for producers to keep the fruits of their efforts instead of giving them away to the poor.
Now that leftists are supposedly holier by virtue of siding with oppressed Muslim womyn of color against evil white males, libertarianism has no use as a counter-ideology and is, in fact, a liability in the culture war due to its inability to provide a justification for defending borders or seeing race.
I disagree. I think there are multiple crises happening.
If current racial policies is not fixed and millions of NAMs are allowed to commit housing destruction and come live on welfare, the US will collapse. If current economic policies are not fixed, the US will collapse (related to the above: race would not that of big of an issue without a welfare state and anarcho-tyranny, see Singapore). If feminism is not repealed and fertility continues to be below replacement, US will collapse as IQ drops precipitously (as Jim has outlined).
Therefore, all three of these things must be fixed at once to even have a sustainable society. I’m not asking everyone to be an Austrian economist but when I hear an alt rightist say “Sweden is pretty good when they didn’t have Muslims”, that’s the wrong attitude to have.
If Sweden didn’t have muds, it would still be Sweden regardless of the circumstances of the collapse. That is why economics is irrelevant now. No one gives a shit if there will be hardship like post-USSR or late stage USSR. There are worse fates even than what the Jews did to the early USSR or post-WWII Germany.
First, the primary purpose of an ideology is not to fix things, but to shift the balance of power. You put the right people in power – those who are willing and able to fix things – then they go about fixing things. And libertarianism has been proven worthless at putting the right people in power.
Second, suppose we’re at the fixing stage. The end goal is a white country with a functioning economy. It’s more effective to pursue these two subgoals directly, rather than indirectly via cutting welfare and hoping that this would somehow lead to subgoal one and two. Libertarianism does not give you a moral justification to pursue these subgoals.
Third, suppose we have fixed things, we have a white country with a functioning economy and want to keep it. We now have the Soros/Ford Foundation problem, where private actors amass a fortune and then use it to pursue the destruction of the status quo. And, again, libertarianism does not give you a moral justification to stop them.
I agree libertarians have been worthless at putting the right people in power since at least 1896 (Grover Cleveland). No argument there. Hence why I’m on this forum lol.
I guess my argument is that libertarianism would be highly useful once you are in the fixing stage. It’s still important for whoever is running things to have an accurate understanding of how the economy works and what policies are generally good etc. Swedes are Swedes because of evolution, not because God decreed it. If you put Swedes in a socialist / low fertility environment for a couple generations, they’re going to turn into Congolese. Conversely, Congolese were pretty good during the Belgian Congo. I would actually argue fixing the economy is more important than having the right demographics since the 19th century US / modern Singapore were highly free and prosperous despite having a lot of NAMs. If you get rid of leftism I doubt NAMs will be an issue given that 100,000 Anglos could rule 400 million Indians in the late 1800s with zero disturbances. But you’re not going to get rid of leftism when you’re idealizing the New Deal like Trump does.
Soros have no ability to subvert the status quo unless your state is already democratic and infiltrated by the left. I agree with Jim that leftism started long before Jews got involved, at least with the abolitionist movement. The source of leftist power is state education / priesthood, not “olligarchs”. The only country on earth today actually run by oligarchs is Hong Kong and it’s pretty good.
“It’s still important for whoever is running things to have an accurate understanding of how the economy works and what policies are generally good etc.”
Yes, absolutely. But that’s not what libertarianism is. Libertarianism is a moral framework which attempts to derive, from first principles, that policies that have proven generally good such as respect for private property are moral and virtuous.
The problem is that the derivation is imperfect.
“If you put Swedes in a socialist / low fertility environment for a couple generations, they’re going to turn into Congolese.”
Well, no, they are not going to, and they didn’t. It’s not like Sweden hasn’t tried socialism. They had >100% taxes at one point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomperipossa_in_Monismania
“Soros have no ability to subvert the status quo unless your state is already democratic and infiltrated by the left.”
Soros absolutely has the ability to subvert the status quo in a libertarian country where property is sacred and he can do whatever he likes with his money, including subverting the status quo, and the status quo has no recourse.
Pdimov, how would someone like Soros be able to subvert the state in a libertarian society that was ruled by an aristocracy / monarch? A billionaire openly trying to overthrow the government would be arrested in any well functioning society, libertarian or no. It’s not that easy to overthrow a state nor does it violate libertarianism to arrest someone trying to commit violence. Certainly the American Revolutionaries had no trouble suppressing Tories (even if you only look at people like Jefferson and not the Massachusetts leftists).
Do you honestly think Swedes have not degenerated genetically from back when they were laissez-faire? Do you really think the Vikings or a 19th century Swede would tolerate Muslims acting like in Modern Sweden and some feminist telling them not to sit cross legged even with government intervention? Even for Americans, a quick look at Tocqueville, the War to subjugate the South or the TSA security line reveals that modern American whites are less brave, intelligent and more spendthrift and impulsive relative to their ancestors. I think Jim made a post about this earlier?
“A billionaire openly trying to overthrow the government would be arrested in any well functioning society, libertarian or no.”
On what libertarian basis would you justify such an arrest?
If your society arrests such billionaires, it’s not libertarian because it places the societal interest above property rights.
“Do you honestly think Swedes have not degenerated genetically from back when they were laissez-faire?”
I’m not familiar enough with them to have a strong opinion on this one. Maybe they did. Congolese however they are not.
“Do you really think the Vikings or a 19th century Swede would tolerate Muslims acting like in Modern Sweden and some feminist telling them not to sit cross legged even with government intervention?”
Today’s Swedes will also not tolerate Muslims acting like that, if the state removes its boot from their necks. Let’s hope that it does so within our lifetime, so that we can see for ourselves which one of us is right.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/26/18-cases-since-february-no-end-in-sight-for-arson-attacks-on-swedish-refugee-centers/
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-sweden-arson-idUSKCN12L17E
Pdimov, you can justify arresting someone overthrowing a libertarian government just like you can justify shooting someone right before they shoot you. It’s basic self defense. If you read Rothbard / Rand they clearly supported suppressing leftists. Libertarianism does need to purge its left wing elements, especially on gender, but you shouldn’t assume we’re all Bryan Caplan. I know a fair number of Paulites who talk about shooting up the government quite frequently.
I think modern Swedes will restore order if the government removed the boot from their neck. But I’m pretty sure their ancestors would not have withstood the boot in the first place. All I am trying to say is that leftism doesn’t just destroy physical capital, but also genetic capital.
For illustration: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10053977/The-Victorians-were-smarter-than-us-study-suggests.html
>If your society arrests such billionaires, it’s not libertarian because it places the societal interest above property rights.
That’s retarded. Its like saying you cannot shoot at rioter, murderer or rapist, because you might ruin his shirt with bullets, thus violating his property rights.
“Its like saying you cannot shoot at rioter, murderer or rapist…”
It’s not at all like that. The murderer or rapist violates NAP in a rather obvious way. The billionaire who, f.ex. owns your media fair and square and uses it for subversion does not. You need pretty elaborate reasoning to prove that his actions are a violation of NAP.
As I said, it’s simply more effective to stop pretending that you’re a libertarian and just arrest him.
“But I’m pretty sure their ancestors would not have withstood the boot in the first place.”
Their ancestors weren’t living in an occupied territory, so it’s hard to say. Remove American influence and see what happens.
Besides, Germany has the same problem, and it wasn’t socialist. And in fact, the part of it that WAS socialist resists Muslims much more effectively. So which is the more likely cause of the rot, American rule or socialism?
Pdimov, do you think the key source of leftism is the media and not the public education system? My reading of 19th century history is that the key driver of leftism is public education – forcing people to regurgitate propaganda for 12 years is highly effective. There’s no way someone like Soros could get people to adopt their ideology using his wealth and the media alone, the Kochs have been trying to promote a cucked version of libertarianism for 30 years and they’ve achieved literally nothing.
Even if a mob got stirred up, what would happen? That would be the perfect time for the hypothetical libertarian government to clean house.
Germany is pretty socialist by any non-20th century standard considering wages and employment conditions are controlled by government and unions and government spending is like 45% of GDP. For the true impact of socialism on the genepool you should look at Russia – going from Tchaikovsky and Tolstoy to whatever they have now is pretty disastrous. If that telegraph link is true even the “mild” Anglo version has already cut IQ by 10+ points.
“Pdimov, do you think the key source of leftism is the media and not the public education system?”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/brazil/5106647/Brazils-racy-telenovelas-inspire-drop-in-birth-rate-rise-in-divorce.html
Education is also important, of course, and also susceptible to subversion.
“Reactionary libertarian” is a contradiction in terms. You can’t be both. Private property is primary for a libertarian, secondary for a reactionary.
“For the true impact of socialism on the genepool you should look at Russia…”
The fact remains that on your original metric, resistance to the Muslim invasion, it’s the formerly socialist Eastern Europe that wins over the less socialist Western Europe. Why is that?
Socialism does negatively affect the gene pool, of course. Ceteris paribus, it’s better to not be socialist than being so. But ceteris is obviously not paribus, and other factors such as r selection, anarcho-tyranny, dysgenic fertility, miscegenation and outright population replacement also affect the gene pool.
For the multiracial libertarian paradise of Singapore, google “IQ shredder”.
》 a couple generations
False. Jews imposed communism on Russians for a couple generations and they are still Russians.
Yes, Singapore is a IQ shredder, but it’s because of their feminism (massively subsidized public education and affirmative action for females – specifically mentioned in LKY’s bio), not them being multiracial or their economic policies. I don’t think Singapore is worse on fertility than NYC and its way better in every other respect. The 19th century US was multiracial and pretty libertarian (laissez faire, legal drugs, legal prostitution, gold standard) while having excellent fertility.
In the past Eastern Europe was more socialist but that’s not necessarily true now. Ex-communist countries have been improving (biggest example being China) while the West has been going more leftist economically. Pretty sure France / Sweden / Italy etc are more socialist than Eastern Europe at the moment (pretty sure Poland doesn’t tax 55% of GDP). A couple countries in eastern Europe even have flat tax.
From what I can see I don’t think we really have a disagreement except on how fast socialism depletes the gene pool. I just think if you don’t repeal state feminism / socialism quickly the decline will be way faster than you think.
Can you specify how hundreds of years of contact with Whites has affected the googlers if the US beyond upbreeding some of them with Whites?
Hey numbnuts, Russia continues to have the best hackers. And the reason the Jews were able to take over in the US is that it would have been contrary to the principles of free enterprise to stop them from monopolizing key industries.
If you will not fight for your nation you are a freeloader. What do libertarians do to freeloaders?
Russia in 1900 produced world-famous composers and novelists despite being a largely agricultural country. Russia in 2000 sustains itself by selling oil and is famous for men who drinks itself to death, women who use abortion as birth control and a fertility of 1.3 or something. And you think this shows communism doesn’t affect the gene pool?
If you are going to argue Russia has the best hackers because that’s what the Democratic party says, I have nothing to say. Pretty sure the IQ stats show otherwise. Russia still only seems smart because Anglo countries have been falling in IQ as well. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10053977/The-Victorians-were-smarter-than-us-study-suggests.html
Google “russia total fertility rate”. There is a sudden drop from 2.22 in 1987 to 1.38 in 1993, coinciding with the fall of communism.
Google “russia suicide rate”. It shot upwards from 43.9 per 100,000 in 1990 to 72.9 in 1995 (for males). Again, coinciding with the fall of communism.
http://www.who.int/mental_health/media/russ.pdf
Google “su 35” and “t 50”. Russia still produces a thing or two.
Go to 2700chess dot com and count the Russian flags.
Interesting. I thought Russia’s fertility was already sub replacement under communism. 1995 was more a collapse of the planned economy due to Yeltsin’s hyper inflation than a transition away from communism but point taken. Will investigate.
Seems like Proggism kills fertility faster than Marxism then. http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/www/external/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF124/cf124.f1.2a.gif
Libertarianism was a solution to the problem of wanting to say implicitly pro-White things and was tolerated by ((media)) and ((academia)) while paleocons were a thing. Consequently ((they)) are more afraid of paleoconism than likely libertarianism, which ((they)) have allied with several times in the past and currently are allied with.
Feminism, legalization and glamorization and industries built around prostitution and porn, decriminalization of heroin, antibiotics in the animal feed, legalization of beastiality, legalization of googlers and mexicans, legalization of skypes, allowing skypes to use porn to push their holy hoax, allowing skypes to broadcast porn on the public airwaves, outsourcing, etc. etc. etc.
Libertarianism was an individual gambit and a large scale attack on the very idea of a nation.
What’s wrong with Prostitution? All 19th century western countries had it and it wasn’t banned until the leftists took over. It’s a legitimate way for unmarried men to get off and not channel their urges into social justice crusading / raping etc. Same with Porn etc. Are you seriously arguing feminism is good?
Dude, the leftists took over in the 18th century.
By what standard do you think that? The 19th century was clearly the peak of the west in both territorial size and freedom (America only taxed around 5% of GDP, England around 10%, compared to over 40% today). Women were virtuous (maybe a bit less than 1700s but still very good by modern standards), NAMs were behaving normally etc. Obviously the decline also started in the 19th century but clearly the Victorian Era was better on every important metric than any period before and after.
The American Revolution, then the French Revolution. The colonies were primed to conquer a vast continent of immense natural resources, filled with the best farmland in the world, flanked by two oceans, geostrategically completely unassailable; and France was at that time the 800lb gorilla of Europe.
Francophile leftism went insane immediately; Cult of Reason, Rousseau was a total nut, Reign of Terror, etc. And the damage inherent in chopping off their aristocracy’s heads and giving rights to women destroyed French fertility, while Germany and her exquisitely martial and thoroughly reactionary leaders kept fertility high so that Germany had utterly eclipsed France by 1900, setting up the World Wars for supremacy on the Continent.
Anglophile leftism worked pretty well for a very long time. I don’t really have an explanation for it, though Jim has said that it had something to do with the traditional rights of Englishmen. The American Revolution was nevertheless the Whig victory to end all victories, and sealed the fate of Europe and of the world, though it of course took nearly 200 years to fully realize itself.
I agree the French Revolution was terrible although the pre Robespierre phase did dismantle the old mercantilist system which prepared France for an industrial revolution. Obviously it would have been better for them to do this without unleashing the left, but given that the French Left was defeated by Napoleon wouldn’t the left’s takeover be in 1871?
I read Moldbug’s piece on the American Revolution but I am pretty unconvinced it was leftist. Maybe some of those involved like Samuel Adams were but the overall result of the Revolution was to reduce the size of government and improve its efficiency, which is hardly a leftist goal. Also, given that the colonies were democratically run by the legislature both before and after you can’t argue that the US would have been saved from democracy without it. Seems like the Revolution was more libertarian than leftist to me.
I think Anglo leftism didn’t gain traction until the abolitionists so I would date their takeover at 1860 not 1776.
1865* although there was still an electorally competitive libertarian party until 1896, surprisingly
The American Revolution was thoroughly leftist. It was dressed up in fancy phrases about freedom, liberty, tyranny, rule of the people, and so on…wonderful words, really, but the reality was a bit more unpleasant. There was Shay’s Rebellion, of course, of soldiers had just fought a war and hadn’t been paid. There was also the trifling fact that the war was basically fought over a few trifling taxes, and upon independence the tax burden grew immediately and hasn’t stopped growing since. It seems crazy now, but the Constitution granted enormous new powers to central government. The old order didn’t have the power to increase taxes, but this power and many others were explicitly given to Congress, whose essential spendthrift nature has not changed since its inception. And then there was the fact that Rousseau can be counted among the Founders’ primary ideological influences.
There were some excellent things about the Revolution, of course, like the conquest of the American continent, which the British were trying to suppress for fear, fully justified, of losing their grip.
reactionaryfuture.wordpress.com had a post(s) on how classical liberalism was in its essence a leftist attempt to destroy the status quo in England, although I can’t find it now. The whole blog is basically required reading even if one does not agree with it. Pure distilled reaction of this kind is not common nowadays.
Cavalier, are you sure the state burden grew after independence? I may be biased because my main knowledge of colonial history is Rothbard’s Conceived in Liberty. While he is libertarian and therefore biased to the left, it is a 4 volume 1600 page book, and he is consistent (book approved by Moldbug). The colonial tax burden was around 10% in Virginia according to Rothbard, probably higher in taxchusetts home of leftism while 1900 America taxed at around 7%. Before civil war that must have been lower so I’m quite skeptical the Revolution raised taxes.
Similar for regs etc. The British had passed a lot of regs they were trying to enforce like banning iron production and set up a system where large plots of land was given to specific people and you had to buy it from there instead of just working it. Yes the constitution was a leftist coup but for 100 years after I don’t think they had regulations as bad as the British just from looking at the poster boys I mentioned above.
I am also skeptical classical liberalism was leftist (hence my handle). Classical liberals did fuck up by thinking democracy is good but their initial policies like getting rid of the English Poor Law and Free Trade and freeing up banking did make things better and seems like stuff the left hates. If classical liberalism didn’t exist wouldn’t the left had taken over faster? I think leftism was pretty inevitable without a cohesive elite or religion to replace traditional Christianity. I appreciate reactionary thought but I don’t want to react for the sake for reacting, it seems to me the Victorian Era was the peak so I want to stay there.
Classical liberalism was OK by itself, but it came to power in alliance with people who wanted to free the slaves, who believed that blacks were equal except better, wanted to emancipate women, and dismantle marriage.
Ebonics, the theory that black dialect is a perfectly good language, just different from regular English, not inferior, tracks back to the early Victorian period.
this comment is spectacularly accurate.
Ron Paul countersignaled the God-Emperor and nothing is worse than ((Brian Caplan)) short of openly celebrating the rapes, trying to teach muds to seduce White women, and telling Germans to assimilate to muds. To beat libertarians at evil, one must be the comically evil dog-faced dyke Merkel.
Government is not intrinsically bad, leftism is, thus libertarians are wrong where they contradict the alt-right and often have a bad attitude when they accidentally don’t.
Tyler Cowen isn’t a libertarian. He’s a prototypical neoliberal, together with Bryan Caplan, and Alex Tabarrok.
What do you mean when you describe the Ba’ath-Alawi-military regime as “legitimate”?
Mandate of Heaven.
They have been around for a long time. His father government competently, and he governed competently, by Middle Eastern standards. Until the US intervened, he successfully prevented his fractious subjects from mass murdering each other.
If you have power, and you have had it a while, and don’t screw up too badly, and don’t turn your society on its head, you are entitled to keep power.
The problem with Libertarianism the movement is that it selectively disbelieves in libertarianism the ideology.
Libertarianism is an ideology that overlaps with Progressivism on perhaps 20% of subjects. In an attempt to get notice and status, Libertarians began first to emphasise these issues, and then to forget about all others.
Well, I don’t really worry about thermonuclear war either, “Jim”, because it has become a sort of stalking horse against the masculine temperament which will at times fight to defend its own honour. However, I do advocate White Genocide reparations against any anti-white who pushes the eradication of the white genotype, to include inundation of white communities followed by policies of enforced blending with third-worlders, which apparently is a big difference between me and the anti-white mentioned in the above blogpost.
A.J.P.
Libertarians believe that people who violate sovereign borders will respect property rights.
When your head is in the sand, your ass is in the air.
Libertarianism is the white right-ish male throwing his hands up and saying: I am impartial! It’s not me you’re looking for!