← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Faust

Thread 4011

Thread ID: 4011 | Posts: 45 | Started: 2002-12-14

Wayback Archive

Faust [OP]

2002-12-14 07:23 | User Profile

Libertarians and Cultural Marxists

"Libertarians are Cultural Marxists."-Faust

"Libertarians are not Cultural Marxists"- Centinel

Any thoughts

...if Libertarians are 'culture marxist' democrats are for sure, passive Maoist and rebublicans are their mentors.-DRSLICEIT

Well I was pretty mad when wrote that down. But sadly I think it true in good part, just look at "Reason" the sick Libertarian Party. It is there open Immigration/borders nonsense that I find most stupid. And many other things.-Faust

I like Buchanan's take on it all. Libertarians are not Cultural Marxists but they promote socialism and big government by advocating open borders, letting people into the country who have no libertarian ideals themselves, who in turn vote and have kids who votes for the nanny state. The only way libertarians could claim success with their policies is if they were the dominant political party in power over a long period where borders were left open, but virtually no taxpayer-provided services were provided to anyone. Since that ain't the case and isn't likely to be anytime soon, about all the Libertarians accomplish is to be useful idiots for factions in both parties who want lax immigration policies and big government. Seeing how we can't get government at state and federal levels to scrap the nanny state (which they are paying dearly for now in red ink BTW), the only viable alternative is to stop the illegals at the border so they can't get inside in the first place to line up for the gravy train. I also think that making visible examples out of employers who hire illegals with stiff fines and prison sentences is equally important. That was one major reason I left the LP...the others being that the party refuses to comdemn abortion and is obsessed more with liberal lifestyles than with small government and noninterventionist foreign policy....ie it's full of potheads, wiccans, and porn stars demanding their "liberties."-Centinel

I will try to say more soon.

Ragnar

2002-12-14 08:11 | User Profile

Libertarians are economic pseudo-intellectuals and they are not "cultural Marxists" because they haven't enough brains for that. They do have a lot of freaks but that probably don't matter because they aren't cohesive enough to get anything done, aside from shining Multinational Corporations' shoes.

Been awhile since I paid dues, but I still have my LP party card. :P

But in the scheme of things most libertarians are no more than a fringe; they join the party as a protest against any restrictions on their appetites.

Lew Rockwell is a good example of why I gave up on them. On the one hand he routinely tells us what a tyrant Lincoln was. Good so far. The he approves of Global Free Trade with "heroic" Walmart as a shining example. The global NWO is a bigger potential tyranny than anything Abe could have imagined. Is Lou too far out in the fog to see that the NWO is Lincoln's "eternal union" on a global scale? I'm sure the thought never crossed his mind.

That's the trouble with fanatics: They don't notice anything that disturbs their fantasy.

Centinel

2002-12-14 08:55 | User Profile

Is Lou too far out in the fog to see that the NWO is Lincoln's "eternal union" on a global scale?

Perhaps. Free-traders live in a world of think tanks and academia, not realpolitik. The factory worker with a family to feed isn't going to care about some abstract economic principle when the plant closes and relocates to China. Nor are the town's shopkeeper's when Wal-Mart moves in and plows them under.

What Libertarians fail to realize is that globalization is destroying communities and families of hardworking, God-fearing people who never took a dime of welfare and wouldn't know how to apply for it if they had to. Yet these people vote, and they are becoming increasingly frustrated with transnational corporations that have no loyalty to anyone but the bottom line, and least of all to their fellow countrymen.

Perot "got it" in 1992. And I hope someone else can come along and galvanize people who feel taking care of the country is more important than having cheap ChiCom crap to buy in Wally World.

One of my biggest fears is that as more of our productive capacity is moved offshore, the transnational corps are going to exert more pressure on Washington to engage in gunboat diplomacy on their behalf when things don't go right for business abroad, and what we're going through with the Arabs, depending on oil from the Middle East (while propping up a state at odds with them), will look like a picnic by comparison.

You wonder why we pussyfoot around the Arabs...it isn't just the oil. Think of the wealth accumulated by them after so many years that's been reinvested in the American economy. Think what would happen if we angered them so much they suddenly divested and put all their money into the EU.

If the Red Chinese want Taiwan bad enough, they'll take it, because they can slap a goods embargo on us that will bring the economy to a standstill. Question is, will we raise the ante and go to war over it? Is it worth it? Will we have a choice?

I know I've rambled on this post, but it's only to illustrate the dangers of utopian 'free trade' in the real world and the potential consequences of not being self-sufficient as a nation and dependent on every other corner of the world for our economy.

il ragno

2002-12-14 11:58 | User Profile

As a Wiccan pothead and porn star, I object!

The longer I live, the more I realize that divergent political ideologies - in fact, the idea of 'diversity' itself - only works as a net-positive when there is, first and foremost, racial and cultural homogeneity within the society.

Without that precondition, the whole shebang is a clash by night of ignorant armies....sound and fury signifying nothing. Repubs and Dems and Greens and Libertarians and all the rest of them fire flaming arrows into the air at each other's parapets, yet the devolution of the Western World continues apace. We get browner and dumber and more pointlessly violent day after month after year; and none of the opposing factions dares point this out. Heck, they accept it as inevitable!

When looking for the Way Out, observe the door marked DO NOT ENTER that none of the shouting apparatchiks would dream of opening under threat of death...even if only to see what's behind it.

It's not hard to understand why. Imagine churning out a lifetime's worth of essays, papers, speeches, monographs & dissertations dedicated to the proposition that race isn't the problem, it's actually Communism/gun rights/education/free trade/Wahhabi'ism/declining standards/religion/theFederal Reserve/Council on Foreign Relations/Bilderburgers/etc/etc/ad infinitum....only to find out at the end of the marathon that it actually was race the whole time.

You'd avoid that door, too...especially if you had a mounting certainty of what was behind it.

PaleoconAvatar

2002-12-15 00:43 | User Profile

Libertarians are economic pseudo-intellectuals and they are not "cultural Marxists" because they haven't enough brains for that.

This is true for many libertarians. Then there are the brainy ones that are nevertheless astoundingly myopic. For example, I've gotten the sense that many libertarians are in high-tech fields, working in computer science or various forms of engineering. They believe in the power of the individual using his reason to transform the world, in the style of John Galt, Ayn Rand's famed protagonist in Atlas Shrugged.

But they believe too much in this power of individual reason, and they seem to think that it is accessible to all, at least theoretically. They are, in other words, egalitarians who are uncomfortable admitting that maybe not every earthly individual has the same mental equipment, and that maybe the distribution of that equipment often follows racial lines. I often wonder what Rand would have thought of Murray and Herrnstein's The Bell Curve, for example, even though I know she doesn't speak for all who embrace the libertarian persuasion.

Now, for those libertarians who are perceptive enough to recognize racial differences, another problem seems to arise that blocks their path--they worry about how people will be treated as society goes about acting upon those differences they recognize. They justifiably worry about the State, but I often get the sense that they are like the pacifists in this regard--idealistic absolutists who would rather allow things to go to hell just to preserve their aura of how "moral" they are. They often cite their "Non-Aggression Principle," using it to filter every decision, every act. Now, I know they'll crucify me for saying this, but sometimes this world requires immorality to produce something great. Sometimes, you really do have to break a few eggs to make an omelet. Sometimes, life isn't fair.

The libertarians rightly respect the Western way of life, but they falsely attempt to univeralize it as the one true way for all of human experience. I think that's misguided. And yes, even the Lew Rockwell camp falls prey to this temptation--Ludwig von Mises, the de facto founder of the Austrian School, believes that any attempt to deny this universality is a fallacy he calls "polylogism." Polylogism, he says, holds that there are many logics that motivate the different races of men, different economic classes, etc., rather than the same universal set of drives felt by all men. Some paleolibertarians will say I'm being unfair, and say that the Misesians don't have a singular, cookie-cutter view of an Economic Man, but I have to admit I've had a hard time telling the difference.

**It's not hard to understand why. Imagine churning out a lifetime's worth of essays, papers, speeches, monographs & dissertations dedicated to the proposition that race isn't the problem, it's actually Communism/gun rights/education/free trade/Wahhabi'ism/declining standards/religion/theFederal Reserve/Council on Foreign Relations/Bilderburgers/etc/etc/ad infinitum....only to find out at the end of the marathon that it actually was race the whole time.

You'd avoid that door, too...especially if you had a mounting certainty of what was behind it. **

il ragno brings up something very interesting here. I think a lot of those things listed are true problems, and I also think race is a central problem--central because of the times we live in--that's the Great Taboo, and there is a lot of power (and many vested interests) locked away behind that door that cry out to be released. Some of those things listed above are also symptoms of other problems, and some are interconnected with others etc.

Those who buy into that theory, and many "mainstream" conservatives also believe those things, need to look at it in a slightly different way: yes, racial division is used as a wedge to deny everyone freedom, but that does not mean that absent the NWO agenda there would be no racial division and we'd all hold hands singing Kumbaya. Racial division has deep roots, probably ones that can never be fully removed, and the thing is that this is a good thing. Whether you believe in evolution or a special creation or some mix of the two, the fact that there are separate races indicates that maybe there's a good reason for maintaining that separation, and not warehousing everyone together under one global roof. What was the lesson of the Tower of Babel, after all? Either way you slice it, the move toward globalization and multiracialism and all that is a manifestation of man's arrogance--a failure to perceive that all things must have boundaries and limits.

Limits. That brings me back to where I started in this post--libertarians are the ultimate humanists who just won't accept limits, and I think that is an attitude they indulge in at their peril.

il ragno

2002-12-15 03:26 | User Profile

What was the lesson of the Tower of Babel, after all?

Bullseye!

There is no historical precedent for Coke-commercial, Kumbaya fantasies. The only related precedent we do have is the one you just cited, Paul. Interesting how it's one of the few Bible stories neither Christian, Jew nor Moslem cares to exhume these days.

Ragnar

2002-12-15 05:55 | User Profile

Originally posted by Centinel@Dec 14 2002, 08:55 ** What Libertarians fail to realize is that globalization is destroying communities and families of hardworking, God-fearing people who never took a dime of welfare and wouldn't know how to apply for it if they had to. Yet these people vote, and they are becoming increasingly frustrated with transnational corporations that have no loyalty to anyone but the bottom line, and least of all to their fellow countrymen.

What makes me furious about this issue is the level of stupidity or venality or maybe both on the part of the media. We're being told by these people that globalization is a new direction in human freedom but it's not, this is being forced by a small part of the elite.

I'm not sure the libertarians fail to realize the effect on local commuities. I was lucky enough to know enough of them close enough to know that they are often (not always) spiteful and vindictive little people who know very well what globalist policies are doing to decent, hardworking folks in real communities. Point is they hate these people. They really believe in TV propaganda America: Full of bigots and haters. However imperfect common people are, they built America. Libertarians are helping the regime destroy these people and if it's an accident it's hard to believe. I hope I'm at least part-wrong because I think paranoia is a classic Sin of Indulgence.

Still, even a pot smoking Wiccan porn star should see a connection between solid, functioning communities and freedom. I think Tom Fleming once wrote a piece on why the libertarians and traditionalists need each other, as a practical matter. American's Freemason Rebels in 1776 still needed the troops the America of Jonathan Edwards provided.

PaleoconAvatar

2002-12-15 06:30 | User Profile

Originally posted by il ragno@Dec 14 2002, 23:26 > What was the lesson of the Tower of Babel, after all?**

Bullseye!

                Good observation, il ragno. It is worth reminding The Big Three of their lost heritage.

Okiereddust

2002-12-15 21:40 | User Profile

Originally posted by il ragno@Dec 14 2002, 11:58 **As a Wiccan pothead and porn star, I object!

Basically MacDonald says exactly that.

*Given that a great many human cultures bear a strong resemblance to the collectivist, anti-assimilatory tendencies in Jewish culture, it is highly likely that many of our present immigrants are similarly unable or unwilling to accept the fundamental premises of a universally, culturally homogeneous, individualistic society. Indeed there is considerable reason to suppose that Western tendencies toward individualism are unique and based on evolved psychological adaptions... We have seen that Western individualism is intimately entwined with scientific thinking and social structures based on hierarchic harmony, sexual egalitarianism, and democratic and republican forms of government. These uniquely Western tendencies suggest that reciprocity is a deeply ingrained western tendency..... *

Okiereddust

2002-12-15 22:01 | User Profile

Originally posted by Faust@Dec 14 2002, 07:23 **I like Buchanan's take on it all. Libertarians are not Cultural Marxists but they promote socialism and big government by advocating open borders, letting people into the country who have no libertarian ideals themselves, who in turn vote and have kids who votes for the nanny state. The only way libertarians could claim success with their policies is if they were the dominant political party in power over a long period where borders were left open, but virtually no taxpayer-provided services were provided to anyone. Since that ain't the case and isn't likely to be anytime soon, about all the Libertarians accomplish is to be useful idiots for factions in both parties who want lax immigration policies and big government...... That was one major reason I left the LP...the others being that the party refuses to comdemn abortion and is obsessed more with liberal lifestyles than with small government and noninterventionist foreign policy....ie it's full of potheads, wiccans, and porn stars demanding their "liberties."-Centinel

I will try to say more soon.**

MacDonald basically almost suggests that far from just being "useful idiocy" for the multiculturalists, the libertarian philosophy is something deliberately pushed by the Frankfurt School "cultural" or "western" marxists for western society.

I don't know how many libertarians deliberately and clearly articulate this, but I think libertarianism to some extent is just a response to the stigmitization of traditional western society as repressive pushed by the FS dominated new left. I also think at some level libertarians are aware of this, at at the top it is very often deliberate and pronounced, hence the convergence between the neoconism and libertarianism with people like Julian Simon and Linda Chavez, the WSJ editorial board, and indeed the whole Ayn Rand society.

As evident in the material reviewed here and in the previous chapters, at least some influential Jewish social scientists have attempted to undermine gentile group strategies while leaving open the possibility that Judaism continue as a highly cohesive group strategy. This theme is highly consistent with the Frankfurt School's consistent rejection of all forms of nationalism. The end result may be that the ideology of the Frankfurt School may be described as a form of radical individualism that nevertheless despises capitalism - an individualism in which all forms of gentile collectivism are condemned as an indication of social or individual pathology. Thus in Horkheimer's essay on German Jews the true enemy is gentile collectivities of any kind, and especially nationalism. Although no mention is made of the collectivist nature of Judaism, Zionism, or Israeli nationalism, the collectivist tendencies of modern gentile society are deplored, especially fascism and communism. The prescription for gentile society is radical individualism** and the acceptance of pluralism. People have an inherent right to be different from others and to be accepted buy others as different. Indeed, to become differentiated from others is to achieve the highest level of humanity. The result is that "no party and no movement, neither the old left or the New, indeed no collectivity of any sort is on the side of truth.

The prescription that gentile society adopt a social organization based on radical individualism would indeed be an excellent strategy for the continuation of Judiasm as a cohesive, collectivist group strategy. Research summarized by Triandis on cross cultural differences in individualism and collectivism indicates that anti-Semitism would be lowest in individualistic societies rather than societies that are collectivist and homogenuous apart from Jews. A theme of PTSDA ("A People that shall dwell apart") is that European socities (with the notable exception of the National Socialist era in Germany and the medieval period of Christian religious hegonomy - both periods of intense anti-Semitism) have been unique among the ecnomically advanced traditional and modern cultures of the world in their committment to individualism. As I have argued in SAID - Chp3-5 (Separation and its Discontents) the presence of Judaism as a highly successful and salient group strategy provokes anti-individualist responses from gentile societies......

People in individualistic cultures, in contrast, show little emotional attachment to ingroups. Personal goals are paramount, and socialization emphasizes the importance of self-reliance, independence, individual responsibility, and "finding yourself" (Triandis 1991,82). Individuals have more positive attitudes towards strangers and outgroup members and are more likely to behave in a prosocial, altruistic manner to strangers. Because they are less aware of ingroup-outgroup boundaries, people in individualistic cultures are less likely to have negative attitudes toward outgroup members. They often disagree with ingroup policy, show little emotional commitment or loyalty to ingroups, and do not have a sense of common fate with other ingroup members....**

Ragnar

2002-12-16 00:25 | User Profile

Originally posted by Okiereddust@Dec 15 2002, 22:01 **MacDonald basically almost suggests that far from just being "useful idiocy" for the multiculturalists, the libertarian philosophy is something deliberately pushed by the Frankfurt School "cultural" or "western" marxists for western society.

                I read MacDonald and agree with that part.  It&#39;s persuasive.

Some work needs done on why liberal arts students fall for this sort of thing so completely. In 1967 George Thayer wrote The Farther Shores of Politics in which "libertarians" (not then so-called) were seen as a freak cult of egghead malcontents. Ten years later I was one of them and surprised that all the ones I knew had graduate degrees in modern dance and creative writing. They tended not to have a great deal of experience and came from the suburbs.

It may or may not be a big deal. Atomization of society is mostly a result of technology and maybe I overrate libertarians' contribution to it because I know so many personally. It's still a bummer.

Okiereddust

2002-12-16 01:24 | User Profile

Originally posted by Ragnar@Dec 16 2002, 00:25 **I read MacDonald and agree with that part. It's persuasive.

Well its not hard to figure out why liberal arts students seem to fall for this type of thing. Their curriculum is particulary politicized firstly. More general, the liberal arts students cultural mileau is one where the general cultural tone is one where liberal Jewish people from the coasts now dominate the general cultural tone of our country, as MacDonald notes.

Today..the immigrants-above all the Jewish immigrants-seem more American than the [WASP] does They are the voices and inflections of thought that seem most familiar to us, literally second nature. [The WASP] is the odd ball, the fossil, the stranger. We glance at him, a bit startled and say to ourselves, "Where did he go?" We remember him: pale, posed, neatly dressed, sure of himself. And we see him as an outsider, an outlander, a reasonably noble breed in the act of vanishingÃ¢â¬Â¦He has stopped being representative, and we didn't notice it until this minute. Not so emphatically.

What has happened since WWII is that the American sensibility has become part Jewish, perhaps as much Jewish as anything else...The literate American mind has come in some measure to think Jewishly. It has been taught to, and it was ready to. After the entertainers and the novelists came the Jewish critics, politicians, theologians. Critics and politicians and theologians are by profession molders; they form ways of seeing. (Kerr 1968, New York Times)> **

It may or may not be a big deal. Atomization of society is mostly a result of technology and maybe I overrate libertarians' contribution to it because I know so many personally. It's still a bummer.**

Well firstly I am not ascribing a leading role of libertarians and libertarianism to the social development of our society. I am rather saying they are a symptom, merely internalizing the public values of a society which has fundamentally altered by the ideology of the Frankfurt School and its cultural allies. That is the standard way of course new and foreign ideologies become mainstream and eventualy deeply imbedded in a society.

Kevin MacDonald describes this process. Referring first to the general role of the Frankfurt School and closely related ideologies -

The opposition of Jewish intellectuals to cohesive gentile groups and a cohesive gentile culture has perhaps not been sufficiently emphasized...

and

I have noted that a powerful tendency both in radical politics and psychoanalysis has been a thoroughgoing critique of gentile society. An important theme here is that "Studies in Prejudice" and, especially, "The Authoritarian Personality" attempt to show gentile group affiliations, and particularly membership in gentile religious sects, gentile nationalism, and close family relationships, are an indication of psychiatric disorder. At a deep level the work of the Frankfurt School is addressed to altering Western societies in an attempt to make them resistant to anti-Semitism by pathologizing gentile group affiliations. And because this effort ultimately eschews the leftist solutions that have attracted so many twentieth-century Jewish intellectuals, it is an effort that remains highly relevant to the current post-Communist intellectual and political context.

This refers to the general society. Regarding the particular political advocacy of libertarianism, MacDonald describes neoconservatism, whose rise I think not coincidentally occurred exactly at the same time as libertarianism rose into prominence.

The neoconservative prescription for society embraces a particular brand of multiculturalism in which the society as a whole will be culturally fragmented and socially atomistic. These social attributes not only allow Jewish upward mobility, but also are incompatible with the development of highly cohesive, anti-Semitic groups of gentiles; they also are incompatible with group based entitlements and affirmative action programs that would necessarily discriminate against Jews. As Horowitz notes "High levels of cultural fragmentation coupled with the religious option are likely to find relatively benign forms of anti-Semitism coupled with a stable Jewish condition. Presumed Jewish cleverness or brilliance readily emerges under such pluralistic conditions, and such cleverness dissolves with equal suddenness under politically monistic or totalitarian conditions."

It therefore seems to me the large majority of libertarians are therefore just aping the fashionable cultural beliefs of our societies intellectual cultural mileau, with its fragmented and atmoistic social ethos, particularly as it goes irreversibly from being one dominated by WASPish beliefs to one dominated by Jewish intellectuals at the upper echelons and closely controled by them.

PaleoconAvatar

2002-12-16 01:32 | User Profile

Well its not hard to figure out why liberal arts students seem to fall for this type of thing. Their curriculum is particulary politicized firstly. More general, the liberal arts students cultural mileau is one where the general cultural tone is one where liberal Jewish people from the coasts now dominate the general cultural tone of our country, as MacDonald notes.

This is very true. The Leftists and their fellow travelers targeted the liberal arts because those are the subjects that tell us about ourselves and our history and such, and they want to manipulate that material and recreate the past so that they can influence the future, politically. Hence, they take over the discipline of History and rewrite it to fit their agenda, they flood into English departments and get rid of traditional literature like Shakespeare in favor of books written by Third World lesbians, and so on.

mwdallas

2002-12-16 02:17 | User Profile

Whether "libertarians" are cultural Marxists depends on how one defines libertarian. We have been through this many times, but no one has offered a history of the term and the ideology (or ideologies) it has represented. If Ayn Rand and her followers were the first to use the term, then perhaps it is fair to criticise libertarianism as lacking in essential principles, i.e., as just another guise of the political ideology known as Judaism.

As I understand it, libertarianism is defined by the non-aggression principle, a principle that all cultural Marxists must implicitly reject. Moreover, at least as the basis for ingroup morality, the non-aggression principle is the moral code we should espouse.

MacDonald basically almost suggests that far from just being "useful idiocy" for the multiculturalists, the libertarian philosophy is something deliberately pushed by the Frankfurt School "cultural" or "western" marxists for western society.

This is a dubious interpretation. MacDonald states that the individualistic nature of European-derived populations provides an environment in which a group strategy like Judaism can flourish -- especially if, as MacDonald explains, the Jewish group succeeds in destroying the cultural ties that allow individualist populations to morph into a cohesive group in cases of threats from opposing groups. Again, I suppose, this may be cast as a definitional issue, but MacDonald never mentions libertarianism; instead you note his discussion of what might approprately be called social atomists and label them "libertarians". Those who promote social atomization should be given an appropriately descriptive name.

Okiereddust

2002-12-16 02:58 | User Profile

Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 16 2002, 02:17 **Whether "libertarians" are cultural Marxists depends on how one defines libertarian. ÃÂ We have been through this many times, but no one has offered a history of the term and the ideology (or ideologies) it has represented. ÃÂ If Ayn Rand and her followers were the first to use the term, then perhaps it is fair to criticise libertarianism as lacking in essential principles, i.e., as just another guise of the political ideology known as Judaism. **

So nobody has yet offered a history of the term or the ideology(ies) it has represented? A rather sad, but probably somewhat undeserved, summary of our discussions.

In general, to stay on the general, rather indisputable level, it seems to me that libertarianism and the libertarian party grew out of the desire of people to create a pro-free enterprise, pro-individualism political movement, but one based more on the liberal concepts on individual freedom, rather than conservatives emphasis more on patriotism, duty, and piety. "Libertarian" strikes me as the catchy term designed to attract attention. Its more attention getting, and much more popularly and culturally recognizable, than "Objectivist Party".

**As I understand it, libertarianism is defined by the non-aggression principle, a principle that all cultural Marxists must implicitly reject. ÃÂ Moreover, at least as the basis for ingroup morality, the non-aggression principle is the moral code we should espouse. **

Aha, you've got an embyonic definition there. Are you prepared to write "The Libertarian Manifesto"?

Of course, you're just one person. By their own philosophy, your definition could not be binding on anyone else.

-"Minimalist government (and Libertarianism in general) is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree" (Yes, I'm a libertarian skectic)

> MacDonald basically almost suggests that far from just being "useful idiocy" for the multiculturalists, the libertarian philosophy is something deliberately pushed by the Frankfurt School "cultural" or "western" marxists for western society.**

This is a dubious interpretation. MacDonald states that the individualistic nature of European-derived opulations provides an environment in which a group strategy like Judaism can flourish -- especially if, as MacDonald explains, the Jewish group succeeds in destroying the cultural ties that allow individualist populations to morph into a cohesive group in cases of threats from opposing groups. Again, I suppose, this may be cast as a definitional issue, but MacDonald never mentions libertarianism; instead you note his discussion of what might approprately be called social atomists and label them "libertarians". Those who promote social atomization should be given an appropriately descriptive name.**

Your fine barrister's eye should have picked up the "almost" and that I refer to a "libertarian philosophy" as opposed to just a "libertarian ideology" (since I have coined the term, I can therefore use it in anyway I want to, without sitting through multitutdes of libertarrian dinner oarties proving my usage is ideologically correct. In practice, it strikes me that libertarianism, as expressed by many of those calling themselves libertarian, does come in many ways close to the radical individualism and social atomism discussed by MacDonald. But you're right, that's my interpretation, not his, at least strictly speaking, although it does strike me there's a logic there in that direction.

Now not all libertarians might go along with this, and some might have varients of this philosophy designed to counter thse weaknesses.I know some of the paleo-libertarians such as Hoppe etc. expressly due in some regard, emphasizing the strong role of private associations in making up a free society. But by and large, the de facto meaning of a word is how people use it, and this is the way I've observed many libertarians use these terms.

I admit I haven't spent my life studying it, as I could. I am busy enough just trying to get an adequate and generally understood definition of conservatism. Libertarians like their ideology, but I'll have to leave it up to you and others to define it. You're welcome of course to point to a LF thread on the subject, or for that matter start your own.

Oklahomaman

2002-12-17 21:49 | User Profile

**-"Minimalist government (and Libertarianism in general) is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree" **

You're correct, of course, to point out that Libertarians aren't homogenous and most are actually quite shifty when you try to put what they believe into words. Not coincendentally, this is a feature they share with feminists, socialists and unorthodox marxists. Nonetheless, this does not proclude me from attempting the following approximate definition:

Libertarianism - a political philosophy in which proposes the following

1) All rational human action and motivation arise from economic self-interest.

2) Any restriction or regulation of economic activity (whether or not based on collectivism, morality or the common good) is irrational and harmful to the interests of the public-at-large.

3) Absent any interference, mankind's social interaction and resource distribution are governed by spontaneously occuring markets where ideas, goods, services, information and relationships are exchanged for fair value.

4) All interaction between individuals and other individuals, groups and organization is governed by a "non- initiation of force" principle where the initiator of force has violated the economic interests of the other party.

5) Expansion of individual rights and radical restrictions on the scope and size of goverment are the primary means to ensure individuals of their ability to participate fully in economic life.

6) Individual rights are conceptualized as positive economic rights - i.e. the freedom of speech is ultimately the freedom to participate in the "market of ideas".

A bit wordy perhaps, but I agree that any debate over Libertarianism is bound to fail unless we all agree to if not perfect, at least a servicable definition.

texoma

2002-12-17 22:32 | User Profile

Sneaking around talking about libertarians behind my back, I see. :D

I see a lot of confusion here about what a libertarian is, and rightly so, because there are a lot of libertarians who are going through the same thing. You have to realize that the libertarians are scattered in a lot of different directions. You see the Evil Randroids of the the Ayn Rand Institute with their hideous Moral Defense of Israel page. The there are the semi-Randians that just can't bring themselves to drop the rhetoric of Objectivism, even though they have to be intellectually inconsistent to use it. Those would be your Reason Magazine-type libertarians and the ones at The Objectivist Center, etc. Then there is the Libertarian Party where all the nutcases hang out and count angels on pin-heads at their stupid Party Meetings and turn blue.

But wait, don't give up on libertarianism entirely! There are the free market anarchists like Hans Hermann Hoppe who write papers like this [url=http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe-margins.pdf]NATURAL ORDER, THE STATE, ANDTHE IMMIGRATION PROBLEM - Hans-Hermann Hoppe*[/url] I'd seriously like to know what disagreements you have with Hoppe and what points of agreements there are.

Then there are these guys at [url=http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/]The Last Ditch[/url] The LP has been hounding them for having "denial links" on their page. These guys are libertarians and anarchists. Here's Ron Neff letting Steve Sniegoski have it: [url=http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/snieg_objec.htm#third_snieg]Objectivism = Sharonism?[/url]

I challenge you guys to read these things and then evaluate your opinion of libertarianism accordingly. Libertarians are not a monolith any more than conservatives are.

I have more links if anyone would be interested.

Okiereddust

2002-12-18 11:03 | User Profile

Originally posted by Oklahomaman@Dec 17 2002, 21:49 > -"Minimalist government (and Libertarianism in general) is whatever we say it is, and we don't agree" **

Libertarianism - a political philosophy in which proposes the following

6) Individual rights are conceptualized as positive economic rights - i.e. the freedom of speech is ultimately the freedom to participate in the "market of ideas".

A bit wordy perhaps, but I agree that any debate over Libertarianism is bound to fail unless we all agree to if not perfect, at least a servicable definition.**

I have a slight fear whenever I see a discussion of this type that I am embarking on another of those ephemerial quests that always seem to animate libertarians. The same thing doesn't for some reason ever motivate conservatives at all.

In your list as you define it, I do see a few asalient things that catch my eye, and point to the obvious influence of Mill and utilitarianism, such as the emphasis on economic factors and the utility of freedom for society.

In any event, to really understand the principles of libertarianism and what animates the suspicions increasing skepticism that it arouses in strict, traditional, conservatism, one I think really needs to go beyond the prepositions and suppositions of libertarianism to the presuppositions.

Defining what libertarianism is and isn't, we have all sorts of constant argument about what "is" and "is not" the proper, or best, brand of libertarianism, as Texoma's long list seems to indicate to. With all these differences, what do they have in common that all makes them cling devoutly to the "libertarian" label, in spite of all their feuds?

You don't mention it, but quite obviously the common assumptions all libertarians share, whatever their stripe, is a basic faith in the animating principles of classical liberalism, as basically articulated in the 19th century by thinkers such as John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Its common assumptions are that by means of a rigorous methodology classical liberalism can be freed from the emphasis on big government that modern liberalism points to, and returned to its putative original focus, that of the individual and freedom. I think, Texoma and Oklahoman that this is the basic assumption underlying the thinking of all libertarians.

If you agree with me, and I think you really should, then a discussion of the commonalities and differences between conservatism and even classic liberalism might be in order and might clarify things. It does have sort of a long history of ebb and flow.

Turn of the century and early century conservative thinkers tended to strongly differentiate between the two, and German conservatives like Moeller and Spengler tended to blackball liberalism. Partly in reaction, post war thinkers tended to equate the two, and conservatives tended to accept the thinking of classic liberals like Ludwig von Mises and his followers as that of their own.

Gottfried and other paleo's tend to think the benignness of Mill, and his unequivicol affinity for western values, really has been quite overstated. Gottfried has a good article on Mill in this regard in the last Chronicles. I think this difference sort of underlies the differences over the proper nature of libertarianism.

texoma

2002-12-18 20:36 | User Profile

You don't mention it, but quite obviously the common assumptions all libertarians share, whatever their stripe, is a basic faith in the animating principles of classical liberalism, as basically articulated in the 19th century by thinkers such as John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Its common assumptions are that by means of a rigorous methodology classical liberalism can be freed from the emphasis on big government that modern liberalism points to, and returned to its putative original focus, that of the individual and freedom. I think, Texoma and Oklahoman that this is the basic assumption underlying the thinking of all libertarians.

See what you think of this: [url=http://www.belmont.edu/lockesmith/timeline.html]Classical Liberalism Historical Timeline:Thinkers, Works, And Movements 1632-Present[/url]

Now, Mill and Bentham contributed to the classical liberal tradition, but don't underestimate Carl Menger, Eugen Bohm-Bawerk, Hayek and Mises' science of human action (praxeology.) The work of these men was to prove devastating to any intellectual defense of socialism. Maybe it would even be possible to think of classical liberalism as the intellectual opposition to the Marxists.

In this branch of classical liberalism/libertarianism (as opposed to the Randian doctrine of glorification of selfishness and rabid individualism) it is necessary to understand how tradition, natural order and Austrian economics underpins the entire school of thought.

While Rothbard, with his defense of individual rights and "eye for an eye" theory of justice is the closest of the classical liberal/Austrians to the Objectivists, he is still far and away an Austrian at the core.

Now, here is where you'll probably part ways with me, but I don't believe there is an intellectually consistent defense of the state. Rothbard came to this conclusion as well, though Rand remained a statist. That disbelief in the state is the basic dispute between the paleoconservatives and the paleolibertarians.

I think that there are enormous areas for common cause between the paleolibs and paleocons. There is similarity in the view of tradition in both schools of thought, a respect for history and culture.

texoma

2002-12-18 21:07 | User Profile

Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 16 2002, 02:17 **Whether "libertarians" are cultural Marxists depends on how one defines libertarian. We have been through this many times, but no one has offered a history of the term and the ideology (or ideologies) it has represented. If Ayn Rand and her followers were the first to use the term, then perhaps it is fair to criticise libertarianism as lacking in essential principles, i.e., as just another guise of the political ideology known as Judaism.

Actually, Ayn Rand emphatically stated multiple times that she was NOT a libertarian. As a libertarian, I am perfectly happy to take her at her word.

texoma

2002-12-18 21:17 | User Profile

Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Dec 15 2002, 00:43 ** This is true for many libertarians. Then there are the brainy ones that are nevertheless astoundingly myopic. For example, I've gotten the sense that many libertarians are in high-tech fields, working in computer science or various forms of engineering. They believe in the power of the individual using his reason to transform the world, in the style of John Galt, Ayn Rand's famed protagonist in Atlas Shrugged.

Those would be the Objectivists. Anytime you see "collectivist" used as an epithet, you are dealing with a Randian or an Objectivist.

Anytime you see someone say "reason" reverently, as if they are worshipping a deity, you are dealing with a Randian or an Objectivist.

Okiereddust

2002-12-19 00:01 | User Profile

Originally posted by texoma@Dec 18 2002, 21:07 > Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 16 2002, 02:17 Whether "libertarians" are cultural Marxists depends on how one defines libertarian. ÃÂ We have been through this many times, but no one has offered a history of the term and the ideology (or ideologies) it has represented. ÃÂ If Ayn Rand and her followers were the first to use the term, then perhaps it is fair to criticise libertarianism as lacking in essential principles, i.e., as just another guise of the political ideology known as Judaism. ÃÂ

Actually, Ayn Rand emphatically stated multiple times that she was NOT a libertarian. As a libertarian, I am perfectly happy to take her at her word.**

Of course Karl Marx similarly once said "I am not a Marxist". However today it is universally agreed we rightly associate Marx with Marxism. To deny such is to mark oneself as just one of those niggling Marxist theoroticians who continue to say that Marxism is a wonderful thing, and that it is just unfairly held in disrepute today because "true Marxism has never been tried".

In a similar way Randism and Objectivism seem to occupy a central role in the development and popularization of libertarianism, despite her similar rhetorical pickiness. I think in fact a strong argument can be made that Rand and Objectivism are more central to Libertarianism as a popular political force than Marx and Dialectical Materialism were to the development of Communism as a popular political force.

Okiereddust

2002-12-19 00:18 | User Profile

Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Dec 16 2002, 01:32 > Well its not hard to figure out why liberal arts students seem to fall for this type of thing. Their curriculum is particulary politicized firstly. More general, the liberal arts students cultural mileau is one where the general cultural tone is one where liberal Jewish people from the coasts now dominate the general cultural tone of our country, as MacDonald notes.**

You're quite right to note how the liberals target the liberal arts because they tell us about ourselves and our history, or at least do so most directly and consciously. Hence most political thinking and leadership is concentrated in these fields, as the person who noted that most of the libertarians he knew in college were ditzy fine arts or liberal arts majors. The liberal arts tell us about who we are, and the average tech type or tech major tends to defer to rather unscrupulously to their expertise when he must venture into their area. He does so because he can most easily comment on these type of areas and sound knowledgable and profound, even though the logic of his technical knowledge would, if understood more carefully, point him elsewhere.

A good example is Bill Gates. Typical of the hi-tech industry, he seems to affiliate to a general business-libertarianism in his practical dealings, although at times he's seemed to lean more leftward. But a look at his methodology reveals he is rather dependent on others for practically all his thinking. He seems to absorb and use political thinking of others unoriginally and almost unthinkingly the same we way we all use computers to browse this forum without really knowing anything of computer code. When he wanted to start his own magazine, he did what all execs do - brought in other people highly regarded in their field (aka Michael Kinsley for Slate) to run it, without probably understanding hardly anything they do.

Just a look at the man's theology is revelatory. Someone asked him what his religious views were a few years ago, and he said "Oh I don't know - atheist, agnostic, something like that'. They said his response wasn't notable for being consciously vague, rather it seemed unusual in that he appeared that he had hardly even thought at all about the subject. After he was put in the public eye, he came up with a slightly more vague and politable "I'm just a Congregationalist (like his parents) who doesn't go very often". But that's his religious thinking. You suppose his politicasl thinking, or that of his contemporaries for that matter, is very much deeper? I suspect it usually stops at "what views most contribute to the success and goals of Microsoft".

Okiereddust

2002-12-19 00:41 | User Profile

Originally posted by texoma@Dec 18 2002, 21:17 > Originally posted by PaleoconAvatar@Dec 15 2002, 00:43 ** This is true for many libertarians. Then there are the brainy ones that are nevertheless astoundingly myopic. For example, I've gotten the sense that many libertarians are in high-tech fields, working in computer science or various forms of engineering. They believe in the power of the individual using his reason to transform the world, in the style of John Galt, Ayn Rand's famed protagonist in Atlas Shrugged.

Those would be the Objectivists. Anytime you see "collectivist" used as an epithet, you are dealing with a Randian or an Objectivist.

Anytime you see someone say "reason" reverently, as if they are worshipping a deity, you are dealing with a Randian or an Objectivist.

I think you're overestimating the thinking power and ideology of people in hi-tech, as I note in my post above. To those of you unfamiliar with computers, there's a term caled "artifical intelligence". It refers to the ability of computers to mimic human thought processes and similate its achievements. I note the operative word is "mimic". A computer process no more can be said to have the attributes of a human mind than a reflection in a mirror can be said to be a human being.

I doubt seriously the "thinking" of techies like Gates and Co. in the humanities and political economy areas is much more genuine than that of the computers he programs. He probably borrows a few key words and tricky phrases from his image consultants and wings it.

Of course, really I doubt you're average liberal arts major is that much more of a deep thinker either, or that their thinking is much less abysmal. The attraction of many to "libertarianism" is really much like that of Bill Gates's.

Oklahomaman

2002-12-19 01:53 | User Profile

Its common assumptions are that by means of a rigorous methodology classical liberalism can be freed from the emphasis on big government that modern liberalism points to, and returned to its putative original focus, that of the individual and freedom. I think, Texoma and Oklahoman that this is the basic assumption underlying the thinking of all libertarians.

The problem is that Classical Liberalism seems susceptible to evolving into Modern Liberalism. In fact, some would argue that Modern Liberalism is simply Classical Liberalism brought to its logical conclusion.

** Now, here is where you'll probably part ways with me, but I don't believe there is an intellectually consistent defense of the state. Rothbard came to this conclusion as well, though Rand remained a statist. That disbelief in the state is the basic dispute between the paleoconservatives and the paleolibertarians. **

Texhoma may well be correct about the intellectual defense of the state, I straddle the fence at times myself; but the alternatives tendered by the paleolibs don't strike me as realistic or consistent themselves. Anarcho-capitalism isn't really anarchist when insurance companies have state-like powers.

Okiereddust

2002-12-19 06:42 | User Profile

Originally posted by Oklahomaman@Dec 19 2002, 01:53 > Its common assumptions are that by means of a rigorous methodology classical liberalism can be freed from the emphasis on big government that modern liberalism points to, and returned to its putative original focus, that of the individual and freedom. I think, Texoma and Oklahoman that this is the basic assumption underlying the thinking of all libertarians.**

This has been the conclusion of a number of thoughtful conservative thinkers I have read. Some indeed merely dismiss conservatism as really in principle nothing but merely "the liberalism of yesterday".

Stalwart upholders of paleoism like myself work against that notion. But we often find that criticism works against the tendencies of thinkers accepted even by other conservatives, such as not just Martin Luther King, Abe Lincoln, and Thomas Paine, but even classic liberals of unquestioned credentials like John Stuart Mill. Gottfried wrote an interesting article in the November 2002 Chronicles "The Dreary Icon" reviewing John Stuart Mill and the Religion of Humanity.

Originally posted by Paul Gottfried@Chronicles, November 2002 **Raeder gives no quarter in going after her stodhy Victorian subject, revered by libertarians (most famously, Friedrich Hayek) as well as by others for his alleged promotion of intellectual freedom. Rader shows that this praise is mostly undeserved and trains her sights on Mill's evolutionary notion of traditional religion (largely borrowed from his contemporary , French socioligist August Comte) you can catch the drift of Mill's speculation about the purpose and limits of liberty.

Raeder's investigation builds on earlier attempts to penetrate beneath the dreary icon Mill has become, especially among democratic ideologues, and reveal his persistant unattractive side. Such unmasking can be seen in the painfully subtle strictures of German refugee scholar (and longtime Yale fixture) Jseph Hamburger in John Stuart Mill on Liberty and Control(1999), in Maurice Cowlings nonstop invective Mill and Liberalism (1999) and in my own recurrent attack launched in After Liberalism on Mill as the precursor of managerial democracy. But Raeder widens and deepens this cumulative attack: She puts at the center of her far-reaching interpretation Mill's posthumously published Three Essays on Religion(1874). In these essays, written with the collaberation of his feminist wife, Harriet Taylor, over a 20-year period, it is possible to grasp Mill's revulsion for traditional religion and his determination to prepare the coming generation for life under scientifically managed socialism.*

Originally posted by Oklahomaman@Dec 19 2002, 01:53 **> ** Now, here is where you'll probably part ways with me, but I don't believe there is an intellectually consistent defense of the state. Rothbard came to this conclusion as well, though Rand remained a statist. That disbelief in the state is the basic dispute between the paleoconservatives and the paleolibertarians. **

To me it seems that any real attack on the state inevitably becomes an attack on communitarianism and communitarian rights in general. A lot of libertarians agree with me on this, alhough paleolibs tend to hold out. This has been the hardcore conviction of the German conservatives like Spengler and Moeller van den Bruck. Moeller, who really wrote one of the most devastating analyses and attacks on liberalism , for instance said "men who denied the state gave liberalism its opportunity".

It is interesting along that line that how neatly the differences between paleolibs and paleoconservatives do, on analysis, so neatly fall along the lines of the split between Hayek and his nemesis Moeller.

texoma

2002-12-19 17:10 | User Profile

Originally posted by Okiereddust@Dec 19 2002, 00:01 **Of course Karl Marx similarly once said "I am not a Marxist". However today it is universally agreed we rightly associate Marx with Marxism. To deny such is to mark oneself as just one of those niggling Marxist theoroticians who continue to say that Marxism is a wonderful thing, and that it is just unfairly held in disrepute today because "true Marxism has never been tried".

Would it not be equally fair to say this, then:

In a similar way ~~Randism and Objectivism~~ William F. Buckley and Irving Kristol seem to occupy a central role in the development and popularization of ~~libertarianism~~ American Conservatism. I think in fact a strong argument can be made that ~~Rand and Objectivism~~ Buckley and Kristol are more central to ~~Libertarianism~~ Conservatism as a popular political force than Marx and Dialectical Materialism were to the development of Communism as a popular political force.

Of course, you would then explain to me the difference between Neocons and paleos, correct? And, being a paleo, you would reject the "conservatism" of the neos as a usurpation of the term "conservative." I think this parallels what has happened in libertarianism also. We have our Neolibs...the Randians and Objectivists.

texoma

2002-12-19 17:12 | User Profile

Originally posted by Okiereddust@Dec 19 2002, 06:42 ** It is interesting along that line that how neatly the differences between paleolibs and paleoconservatives do, on analysis, so neatly fall along the lines of the split between Hayek and his nemesis Moeller.**

Could you expound on this or link me to something on this point?

texoma

2002-12-19 17:20 | User Profile

Originally posted by Okiereddust@Dec 19 2002, 06:42 **

Did you read my Hoppe link? You've got to quit assuming all libertarians are rabid individualists if we're going to get anywhere. There is a strong libertarian philosophy supporting tradition, secession and community based on the principles of free association, negotiated property rights and evolved cultural values. It's gaining adherents all the time. You can nitpick this and that libertarian and find something to disagree with, but I propose we forget that and find our COMMON GROUND.

Okiereddust

2002-12-19 17:58 | User Profile

Originally posted by texoma@Dec 19 2002, 17:12 > Originally posted by Okiereddust@Dec 19 2002, 06:42 ** ÃÂ It is interesting along that line that how neatly the differences between paleolibs and paleoconservatives do, on analysis, so neatly fall along the lines of the split between Hayek and his nemesis Moeller.

Could you expound on this or link me to something on this point?**

The differences are quite apparent in their view of liberalism. Compare Hayek's view adultatory view of Mill's brand of liberalism with Moeller's flat rejection of it

Originally posted by Germany's New Conservatism@Von Klemperer Moeller's view of liberalism shows little of the moderation of a Ranke or a Mill. To Moeller, liberalism was "the terrifying power of the nineteenth century" readily equated with materialism, relativism, individualism, nihilism, and frequently with freemasonery. Liberalism , as Moeller saw it, was "sectarian liberalism", to use Professor Carlton J. Hayes's term: a business philosophy rathre than an ideological concept.

The differences over liberalism incidentally aren't purely over the modernism question, with which liberalism broke with the middle ages monarchy and the ancient regime, etc. The differences seem to some over what version of modernism, Hayek's version or the version of Moeeler, Spengler, Junger etc, termed by some as "reactionary modernism".

Not surprisingly, Hayek tended to take a dim view of Moeller and other's of his ilk, as have his libertarian followers, which of course is perfectly fine by the neo cons. Klemperer describes their approach

Originally posted by Klemperer@Germany's New Conservatism ...most approaches to the problem have been either of an accusing or an apologetic nature. In the first category are the stumulating studies by Aurel Kolnai, Edmond Vermeil, and Friedrich Hayek. These authors have a tendency to throw the new conservatives together with Nazism. The new conservatives were, in short, the "doctrinaires" of the Nazi revolution. In the second category are the works by authors who, like Hermann Rauschning and Armin Mohler, were and are themselves deeply involved n the new conservatism. Moredirectly inspired by Hofmannsthal's address than the other group, they emerge with a rigid differentiation between the "conservative revolution" and the Nazi revolution, the "revolution of nihlism". According to them conservatism is a well-defined view of life designed to make the estern world conscious of its traditions and to equip it with purpose in its fight against fascism, and, for that matter, communism.

I hope that gives you some start at least in what I am referring to.

Okiereddust

2002-12-19 18:43 | User Profile

Originally posted by texoma@Dec 19 2002, 17:20 > Originally posted by Okiereddust@Dec 19 2002, 06:42 **

To me it seems that any real attack on the state inevitably becomes an attack on communitarianism and communitarian rights in general. A lot of libertarians agree with me on this, although paleolibs tend to hold out. ÃÂ .... **

You always rag on me for not rereading your paleo-libertarian links. As I noted I am well aware of Hoppe and the paleo-libs at Rockwell, who unlike most libertarians support immigration restrictions and the general idea of communitarian rights. I have spent many long and tedious hours arguing his precepts with the mainline libertarians and Free Republic in the past, people like annalex, jlogadan, Uriel1975, and others less reputable.

I might compare the differenent viewpoints regarding libertarianism to those differences regarding "reactionary modernism". There are those who, as you tend to accuse me of doing, who tend to lump all libertarians, paleo's and mainstream, together as the doctrinaires of the globalist business coomunity, rigidly opposing border restrictions, the nation-state, and other communitarian manisfestations of an antiquated, statist past.

There are others, who like you are paleo-libertarians themselves who draw a rigid differentiation between mainstream, open borders, business-libertarianism and objectivism, and paleo-libertarianism.

For various reasons explained in some detail, Klemperer took a middle ground in between these two groups. I similarly tend to take a middle ground, noting the differences, but also being watchful of the similarities. Such seems prudent to me, consisting as thy do of voluminuos libertarian dialectics which tend to be oimpenetrable to the outsider.

It seems reasonable to me that if I don't proclaim The Third Reich of Moeller and the Folkish Socialism of Spengler to be the automatic solution to the present dilemma of the right and America and demand you accept the unambiguous utility of these concepts to any conservative renaissance, you might in turn indulge me in a certain amount of reserve regarding paleolibertarianism as not being completely and irrevokably different than mainline libertarianism. The two branches of libetarianism, after all, as you yourself admit, still share a great deal in common, particularly to someone outside the libertarian movement.

Okiereddust

2002-12-19 19:39 | User Profile

Originally posted by texoma@Dec 19 2002, 17:10 **In a similar way ~~Randism and Objectivism~~ William F. Buckley and Irving Kristol seem to occupy a central role in the development and popularization of ~~libertarianism~~ American Conservatism. I think in fact a strong argument can be made that ~~Rand and Objectivism~~ Buckley and Kristol are more central to ~~Libertarianism~~ Conservatism as a popular political force than Marx and Dialectical Materialism were to the development of Communism as a popular political force.

I don't know about Kristol. He's more related to the other New York Intellectual hanger-ons like Sidney Hook who Buckley cultivated. But the obstacle of Buckley himself, along with National Review's historical positions and Ronald Reagan and other undisputed hero's of the American right, has been after all the crux pitch which paleoism has had to try to negotiate and resolve to win recognition and legitimacy.

Paleoism did have to trot out some big guns, after all, to defend itself against the always lurking form of people like the new National Review crowd who simply asserted that Pat Buchanan, far from defending conservative tradition, was in fact just abandoning it.

Chronicles had to trot out the grandfather of conservatism and traditionalism, Russell Kirk, while Francis had to tie himself in with James Burnham and southern particularism (for which people like AntiYuppie note always seems a little out of character for Francis).

I am quite sure paleolibertarianism endures similar gibes from mainliners and objectivists that they also are "abandoning libertarian principles".

I suspect the positions of both movements within their camps are quite similar. Both paleoconservatism and paleolibertarianism attracted a literary and intellectual following of high repute. Organizationally however neither one has really caught on within their broader political contexts of the American right. Buckley really remains the unquestioned organizational leader of the manstream conservaive movement, through his influence at National Review and within the GOP. The paleo alternatives of Chronicles and Buchanism are somewhat ephemeral.For this matter their long practical viability will continue to be a struggle for those in them.

It is a lot of work. For that reason, we must always be willing to take a close look at them must both be continued to evaluated to make sure their positive attributes, while unqustionably substantial, are really high enough to continue to merit the continued high cost of orginational sustanence and seperation from their parent movements. I hope you see it isn't harping, its just reasonable self-examination.

mwdallas

2002-12-19 19:42 | User Profile

**Of course, you would then explain to me the difference between Neocons and paleos, correct? And, being a paleo, you would reject the "conservatism" of the neos as a usurpation of the term "conservative." I think this parallels what has happened in libertarianism also. We have our Neolibs...the Randians and Objectivists. **

Excellent point, Texoma. You have acquitted yourself exceptionally well.

Now, here is where you'll probably part ways with me, but I don't believe there is an intellectually consistent defense of the state. Rothbard came to this conclusion as well, though Rand remained a statist. That disbelief in the state is the basic dispute between the paleoconservatives and the paleolibertarians.

In a nutshell this is the problem with the state:

The state has a license to steal, and a license to kill those who resist.

Darwin:

*It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing [a high degree of] the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection (p. 203) *

In combatting our tribal enemy, the fundamental problem we face is the willingness of individuals to profit at the expense of the group. Crime -- whether committed by individuals, or by gangs that claim a "right" to commit such crimes -- cannot be tolerated. At all. Ever.

Those predisposed to engage in criminal activity will gravitate to the state, and the existence of the state -- i.e., the existence of tolerated criminal activity -- provides those of indeterminate character with incentive to pursue individual interest at the expense of the group. The existence of the state is at odds with the ability of the group to compete with other groups.

I would point out that our competitor does not tolerate a state.

texoma

2002-12-19 20:24 | User Profile

Originally posted by Okiereddust@Dec 19 2002, 06:42 **

Rag, rag, rag. :D

Hey, I fight with the exact same people.

texoma

2002-12-19 20:31 | User Profile

Originally posted by Okiereddust@Dec 19 2002, 18:43 **For various reasons explained in some detail, Klemperer took a middle ground in between these two groups. I similarly tend to take a middle ground, noting the differences, but also being watchful of the similarities. Such seems prudent to me, consisting as thy do of voluminuos libertarian dialectics which tend to be oimpenetrable to the outsider.

                Sure, it&#39;s prudent, but don&#39;t forget that we have some formidable enemies looming.  At what point are the paleos of the lib and con varieties going to figure out their common ground?  What do we agree about?  How can we work together?

I've been thinking about all the paleos from FR - we're mostly all banned now, aren't we? Look at the libertarians still swimming in the neo pool over there and the ones that are banned. What's the difference between those kinds of libertarians? Notice that the ones on your list that you say you argued with are all still FReaks in good standing. Ain't that an odd synchronicity.

texoma

2002-12-19 20:35 | User Profile

Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 19 2002, 19:42 ** Those predisposed to engage in criminal activity will gravitate to the state, and the existence of the state -- i.e., the existence of tolerated criminal activity -- provides those of indeterminate character with incentive to pursue individual interest at the expense of the group. The existence of the state is at odds with the ability of the group to compete with other groups.

I would point out that our competitors do not tolerate a state.**

Thanks for the compliment and I agree with your point about the state. I'm confused by your statement about competitors, though. Care to explain?

Okiereddust

2002-12-19 21:19 | User Profile

Originally posted by texoma@Dec 19 2002, 20:31 > Originally posted by Okiereddust@Dec 19 2002, 18:43 For various reasons explained in some detail, Klemperer took a middle ground in between these two groups. I similarly tend to take a middle ground, noting the differences, but also being watchful of the similarities. Such seems prudent to me, consisting as thy do of voluminuos libertarian dialectics which tend to be oimpenetrable to the outsider.

Sure, it's prudent, but don't forget that we have some formidable enemies looming. At what point are the paleos of the lib and con varieties going to figure out their common ground? What do we agree about? How can we work together?

I'm not ringing any alarm bells though. Right now to surface appearances it appears we agree on almost everything, and we are all similarly personna non grata with all the organizations of establishment conservatism such as Free Republic.

I don't really think, even on a strong theoretical level, why with our culture paleolib followers of Hayek von Mises et. al. with your interpretation and paleo cons have any major obstacles toward working together, and practically, we basically do. Where problems could arise is in articulating our programme beyond our ranks, attempting to form alliances with other groups etc. Such efforts can highlight strains and schisms within our ranks. For that reason I think its important that we understand each other, in our minor but significant differences in background and philosophy as well as our broad agreement on general principles.

Paleo types, in general, as outsiders from the managerial state, tend not to have the strong disciplining factor of existing originations. As such, I've herd it often said that even getting paleo cons to work together among themselves is like herding cats. Extending to paleo libs adds just one level of complexity. As such, its something we always need to work on, so we can move to our goal of a really viable and effective opposition to the neo con establishment.

Even on the internet, let alone in regular political life. :rolleyes:

mwdallas

2002-12-19 21:44 | User Profile

**Thanks for the compliment and I agree with your point about the state. I'm confused by your statement about competitors, though. Care to explain? **

I miswrote. I should have said (and I have corrected it to say) "competitor". The competitor is the Jewish group.

Okiereddust

2002-12-20 04:45 | User Profile

Originally posted by mwdallas@Dec 19 2002, 19:42 **In combatting our tribal enemy, the fundamental problem we face is the willingness of individuals to profit at the expense of the group. Crime -- whether committed by individuals, or by gangs that claim a "right" to commit such crimes -- cannot be tolerated. At all. Ever.

I would point out that our competitor does not tolerate a state. **

Must admit you've really turned this concept of what makes "the state" bad on its head. Most libertarians, such as Ayn Rand, see to argue that they hate the state and socialism because it allows the group or faceless herd to profit at the expense of the hard working, herioc, individual. You seem to be arguing the opposite, that it allows the individual to exploit the group.

You seem to do the same things with concept of "law" and "crime" as well.

Its an interesting, but somewhat hard to follow, line of argument.

texoma

2002-12-20 14:41 | User Profile

Originally posted by Okiereddust@Dec 20 2002, 04:45 ** Must admit you've really turned this concept of what makes "the state" bad on its head. ÃÂ Most libertarians, such as Ayn Rand, see to argue that they hate the state and socialism because it allows the group or faceless herd to profit at the expense of the hard working, herioc, individual. ÃÂ You seem to be arguing the opposite, that it allows the individual to exploit the group.

You seem to do the same things with concept of "law" and "crime" as well.

Its an interesting, but somewhat hard to follow, line of argument.**

Most libertarians, such as AYN RAND?

Do I need to rag on you again?

"The State" is manned by thieves and gangs of thieves. They sell you your own poison by telling you it's good for you. They promise security and they deliver insecurity. They promise stability and give you chaos and destruction. They promise justice and deliver injustice. They promise and education and deliver mindlessness and distorted history. State "Family courts" and "Aid to Families" destroy the family. State imposed "diversity" and "multiculturalism" rips apart communities and demonizes those who believe in property rights and free association. State imposed "equality" imposes the feminist agenda, further destroying the American family, the American workplace and American men. For groups who wish to preserve tradition, community values and culture the most grievous error is to believe that the state can further these goals in any way. The state is destructive of all you hold dear, necessarily so to facilitate it's fleecing you of everything valuable and stripping you of your every defense.

Rand was wrong. Rand's view of what it is to be human is so severely flawed as to be useless. She rejected the reality of man as a social creature, in favor of her heroic fantasy of the individual superman.

Objectivism and Randianism is a philosophy for ignorant self-aggrandizing suckers.

Howard Campbell, Jr.

2002-12-20 14:58 | User Profile

Texoma:

Exactly. The Randites have exposed themselves as raw, reflexive Zionists indifferent to American sovereignty or to the principle of Self-Determination for non-Jews in Palestine.

Give me Mencken, Spooner, Bierce and Hoppe... ;)

texoma

2002-12-20 15:06 | User Profile

Originally posted by Okiereddust@Dec 19 2002, 21:19 ** Paleo types, in general, as outsiders from the managerial state, tend not to have the strong disciplining factor of existing originations. As such, I've herd it often said that even getting paleo cons to work together among themselves is like herding cats. Extending to paleo libs adds just one level of complexity. As such, its something we always need to work on, so we can move to our goal of a really viable and effective opposition to the neo con establishment.

Even on the internet, let alone in regular political life. :rolleyes:**

I have two quotes for you that I think explains this phenomena:

The class of those who have the ability to think their own thoughts is separated by an unbridgeable gulf from the class of those who cannot. -- Ludwig von Mises

And

**All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man; its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane and intolerable, and so, if he is romantic, he tries to change it. And even if he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are.... **

H.L. Mencken Chrestomathy

mwdallas

2002-12-20 16:33 | User Profile

**Must admit you've really turned this concept of what makes "the state" bad on its head. Most libertarians, such as Ayn Rand, see to argue that they hate the state and socialism because it allows the group or faceless herd to profit at the expense of the hard working, herioc, individual. You seem to be arguing the opposite, that it allows the individual to exploit the group.

You seem to do the same things with concept of "law" and "crime" as well.

Its an interesting, but somewhat hard to follow, line of argument. **

I will attempt to flesh out the argument when I have some time. I have some pressing work matters at the moment.

darkeddy

2003-01-15 03:26 | User Profile

Given that the Israelis and the Palestinians are in a state of war, calling for the application of principles of self-determination now is a little like doing so just as the Allied troops were poised to enter Germany.

Faust

2003-01-15 04:55 | User Profile

Great thread. I have been "Libertarian bashing" on Web Forums going back to FR. I did mess up the title of this thread I did mean it to be: Libertarians and Cultural Marxism. Oh well. Well, I did start this mess I should say something.

Ragnar said:

I would disagree somewhat; the mindless "Free-trader" is a product of Cultural Marxism and is the tail end of the same beast. And in the end no better the Frankfuters. Let us not forget that many of these Libertarians are setting well inside the Neocon Camp.

A great Post! I'm not sure the libertarians fail to realize the effect on local commuities. I was lucky enough to know enough of them close enough to know that they are often (not always) spiteful and vindictive little people who know very well what globalist policies are doing to decent, hardworking folks in real communities. Point is they hate these people. They really believe in TV propaganda America: Full of bigots and haters. However imperfect common people are, they built America. Libertarians are helping the regime destroy these people and if it's an accident it's hard to believe. I hope I'm at least part-wrong because I think paranoia is a classic Sin of Indulgence.-Ragnar

Yes libertarians hate us Paleocons: "Middle Americans", Nationalists, "Racists", Christians, and Paleocons! Just read "Reason" and you will see.

Great All too True! The problem is that Classical Liberalism seems susceptible to evolving into Modern Liberalism. In fact, some would argue that Modern Liberalism is simply Classical Liberalism brought to its logical conclusion.-Oklahomaman

Yes! Free-traders live in a world of think tanks and academia, not realpolitik. The factory worker with a family to feed isn't going to care about some abstract economic principle when the plant closes and relocates to China. Nor are the town's shopkeeper's when Wal-Mart moves in and plows them under.

Perot "got it" in 1992. And I hope someone else can come along and galvanize people who feel taking care of the country is more important than having cheap ChiCom crap to buy in Wally World.-Centinel

Great all too true! The libertarians rightly respect the Western way of life, but they falsely attempt to univeralize it as the one true way for all of human experience. I think that's misguided. And yes, even the Lew Rockwell camp falls prey to this temptation--Ludwig von Mises, the de facto founder of the Austrian School, believes that any attempt to deny this universality is a fallacy he calls "polylogism." Polylogism, he says, holds that there are many logics that motivate the different races of men, different economic classes, etc., rather than the same universal set of drives felt by all men. Some paleolibertarians will say I'm being unfair, and say that the Misesians don't have a singular, cookie-cutter view of an Economic Man, but I have to admit I've had a hard time telling the difference...

I always kind of wince when I hear various "rainbow patriots" quickly assure people that "freedom is for everyone--Black, White, etc." and then make the claim that the Controllers of the New World Order are using racial division as a wedge to keep all of us from uniting to oppose the NWO and win back our freedom. Now, yes, in a sense this is exactly what's happening, but I think the way they say it is dangerously misleading. That statement seems to assume that any "racial division" that's happening is a result of some deliberate maneuvers by the NWO and paid agents like Jackson, Sharpton, et al. stirring the pot. And this type of person, by the way, often mentions David Duke as a NWO agent doing the same pot-stirring as a counterpart to Jackson.

Those who buy into that theory, and many "mainstream" conservatives also believe those things, need to look at it in a slightly different way: yes, racial division is used as a wedge to deny everyone freedom, but that does not mean that absent the NWO agenda there would be no racial division and we'd all hold hands singing Kumbaya. Racial division has deep roots, probably ones that can never be fully removed, and the thing is that this is a good thing. Whether you believe in evolution or a special creation or some mix of the two, the fact that there are separate races indicates that maybe there's a good reason for maintaining that separation, and not warehousing everyone together under one global roof. What was the lesson of the Tower of Babel, after all? Either way you slice it, the move toward globalization and multiracialism and all that is a manifestation of man's arrogance--a failure to perceive that all things must have boundaries and limits.

Limits. That brings me back to where I started in this post--libertarians are the ultimate humanists who just won't accept limits, and I think that is an attitude they indulge in at their peril.-PaleoconAvatar

Very true, but the long run this is also where they can do us more damage too. The Leftists and their fellow travelers targeted the liberal arts because those are the subjects that tell us about ourselves and our history and such, and they want to manipulate that material and recreate the past so that they can influence the future, politically. Hence, they take over the discipline of History and rewrite it to fit their agenda, they flood into English departments and get rid of traditional literature like Shakespeare in favor of books written by Third World lesbians, and so on.-PaleoconAvatar

From "revolutionary conservative?"

Conservatism is not the ideology of capitalism

It should also be clear that conservatism is not a synonym for the ideology of capitalism. The conservative has a healthy distrust of capitalism, and especially of its tendency to usurp the place of other institutions in society. It tends to elevate itself and its merely economic considerations to primacy of place within a community. This entails not only an implicit denial of a transcendent order, but also an explicit denial of the diversity of human existence (a denial shared by present-day "multiculturalism," which, far from affirming the distinctiveness of cultures, denies to any culture the authority to conserve its distinctiveness); the priority of prescription over abstract design (as can be seen in the "anarcho-capitalists" and in many libertarians); and the dangerousness of innovation (of which capitalism has been a main force in recent history).

Conservatives do to some extent defend capitalism, since they defend the rights of property, the affirmation of which is part of capitalism. Private property, the institutions by which each person has effective ownership and control of the means of providing for himself and for his family and friends, allows each person to be to some extent or other independent of others and responsible for himself. But they tend to defend capitalism as the lesser evil, recognizing at the same time that there are other aspects to society that are only imperfectly grasped (if not missed entirely) in economic terms and that have priority over merely economic considerations. This is the case with the institutions of private property, which conservatives defend primarily for other than economic reasons. If economic concerns were all there is--if life were nothing more than a matter of getting and spending--then economic arrangements which made it possible to get and spend as much as one can at the cost of dependence upon others and irresponsibility to oneself should be preferable (and the present state of affairs suggests that many do find it preferable). The conservative recognizes the political and cultural dangers of such dependence and irresponsibility. He defends private property primarily as a bulwark against these dangers, and not merely because it is economically efficient.

url: [url=http://www.suba.com/~rcarrier/revcon.html]http://www.suba.com/~rcarrier/revcon.html[/url]