The False Flag of Libertarianism

[Sauerteig]

I wrote this article under yet another pen name, Ian David Carlyle:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...ibertarianism/

I think it presents an important critique of the libertarian movement that is taking hold in Amiland.
Hope you enjoy.

[LightHouse89]

I wrote this article under yet another pen name, Ian David Carlyle:

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net...ibertarianism/

I think it presents an important critique of the libertarian movement that is taking hold in Amiland.
Hope you enjoy.

Merica in a nut shell. The situation is beyond bad and I honestly do not think it will reverse.

[portusaus]

It's basically Leftism tailored to appeal to young intellectuals that want small government, stoners, and small business owners. The token '"good" third party' to give the angst-ridden youth false hope. It also deters them from discovering NS etc. because they are taught that big government is always bad in addition to the propaganda at school.

[LightHouse89]

It's basically Leftism tailored to appeal to young intellectuals that want small government, stoners, and small business owners. The token '"good" third party' to give the angst-ridden youth false hope. It also deters them from discovering NS etc. because they are taught that big government is always bad in addition to the propaganda at school.

The only good thing about America was the confederacy... after that and the old paleoconservatism died out the marxists took over.

[Sauerteig]

It's basically Leftism tailored to appeal to young intellectuals that want small government, stoners, and small business owners. The token '"good" third party' to give the angst-ridden youth false hope. It also deters them from discovering NS etc. because they are taught that big government is always bad in addition to the propaganda at school.

See I do not feel that sensible government is always bad, just as, like the REAL right-wing, I mix left with right for one potent concoction of tribal populism. Indeed, I agree wtih Bloomberg about restrictions on the sale of soda, just as I agree with Michelle Obama, at the most basic, general level, about measures designed to improve the diet and health of youngsters (I just do not necessarily agree with her means to those ends).
It really angers me to think that corporate shills like Lee Doren or Tom Naughton are suppsed to be the voice of the right. They do not give two shits about culture or values, but just the bottom line. And there principal concern about money is not even directed at small private enterprise, but more directed to multinational behemoths that have not just wreaked havoc on the American landscape, but are also diluting High European culture across the pond.
One of the negative reviews on amazon for Fat Head disparaged it as "right-wing" bunk. There is nothing right-wing about it. Anyway, I hope everyone enjoys the article, and hope to write more in the future.

[Sauerteig]

bumpers

[Odin]

[Adamm]

AnCap all the way.

[Hexachordia]

False-flag: vaccination against the truth, like what Joseph Bidezhneev doing right now about chicoms, pretending to counter the commies with alliences, and then starting to sell the allies out step by step to help the commie survive the hostility. Libertarianism is about clueless fools screwing around without avail, like Pickwickian humanism, bourgeoisie people do not realize that capitalism deprives of their cultural integrity, exactly like what the commies do to people with oppression and ethnic cleansing.

False belief, false democracy, false peace, false hope are the best weapon against humanity, give you similitude, and you bury yourself with lies alive. Bourgeois people are thoughtless cretins, toxic faeces of the imperialist classes, therefore the commies love these people a lot, and most intellectuals belong to this echelon. Death to communism and capitalism, no more no less.

[sean]

Libertarianism is live and let be. It encompasses a broad set of viewpoints. At its heart are a few basic ideas about individual rights, the role/size of government and best practices for a healthy market.

There are many much more nuanced viewpoints within the wheelhouse of Libertarianism. Take for instance, Noam Chomsky. He is a hero of socialists, and a champion of workers unions. Nobody would think to connect Noam Chomsky with Libertarianism. Yet, he self-identifies as a Libertarian-Socialist or an Anarcho-Socialist. People like Noam Chomsky see individual freedoms as being dependant on some degree of mutual aid.

The problem, as you can see, is not that we have too few rationalities, but that we have too many. There is no way to meaningfully reconcile the difference between rationalities - there is not even agreement on what the structure of a meta-debate would look like.

There's libertarians who are neo-liberals (Milton Friedman, Tom Palmer, etc) and there's libertarians who are paleoconservatives. Think of it as Bill Weld/Gary Johnson libertarianism (pro-immigration, pro-internationalism, pro-trade, okay with some welfare state) versus the Ron Paul variety (anti-UN, anti-WTO, restrictive on immigration, etc).

If you could fully unpack your political philosophy into language, it is almost certain you would have "libertarian" sandwiched somewhere in your personal hyphenate. Simply admitting "government is not the solution to all social problems" puts you on the border of Libertarian territory.

Some government is completely useful and crucial, such as homeland defence and the like. But, a man's obligations to society ought to be what is only the essential. I shouldn't be legally obligated to pay for anything for another person.

Does this mean that the less privileged are worse off under Libertarianism? Yes it does. Does that mean that I should give the government power to use my tax money to support laziness? No it doesn't. This doesn't mean I don't care about those less fortunate than me. It means that I have the right to do with my money how I see fit.

Government is necessary for the defence of the country, the enforcement of laws put in place to protect freedom and discourage damaging actions between individuals or businesses, and to counter oligarchy/monopolies. It should never force a person to buy food for someone who either doesn't (those who haven't earned) or can't (those that can't earn) to eat that food.

The line gets drawn when people start being forced to pay for the bills of others, be it food, medical care, or child assistance. It should be a personal choice to give charity not a requirement.

The ethnostates of the past were closer to libertarianism than any modern nation state. The HRE was basically ANCAP. America started out as a libertarian ethnostate for whites only. It's basically a perfectly correct ideology for a society composed of just white people, it does not work when you have Brazil-tier demographics.

I think the way forward for North America after the libtards are decimated is Hoppe-styled libertarianism which allows for some much needed voluntary racial-segregation, though perhaps with a transitional period of fascism first to eliminate parasitic elements (non-white immigration) on our lands and create self-sufficient and strong people first. The government should largely be a military one designed to keep parasites out of our borders.