February 23, 2014

Kiev: Where were the libertarians?

A reader writes:
What I like about this whole revolution is that it is the ultimate shut-up-button for libertarians. 
Whenever libertarians moan about nationalists you can now say: "Well, when Ukraine was in trouble, who fought for liberty? Where were you guys?" 
I'd like to see Bryan Caplan answer that question. 
That's why patriots/nativists are necessary. When the going gets tough, it's not the progs or the immigrants or the libertarians who will defend or take back, it's the people who will fight for their country and want to save it for their progeny.
     

135 comments:

kurt9 said...

The "reader" makes the assumption that libertarians are too pussy to defend their liberty and autonomy. Putting this assumption to test could prove very dangerous. Just because we are not willing to be grunts in large impersonal bureaucracies called militaries does not mean we are unable to develop other (technological) means to defend our liberty and autonomy.

ATBOTL said...

I suspect there are virtually no libertarians in Ukraine. I also suspect that virtually 100% of the people in Ukraine would be considered extreme right fascist maniacs if they were to be judged by the standards white, Christian Americans are in "our" media."

countenance said...

Libertarianism and a lot of -isms comes out of secure prosperous countries. Countries fighting for their existence and survival have no time for -isms, libertarian or otherwise.

But you can bet that if things work out well in The Ukraine, libertarians will take credit.

sunbeam said...

Hard to imagine Libertarians being able to fight effectively. That's just my take though.

In the end, unless you are allowed to haul away booty and burn stuff, there is just no economic incentive to be a soldier and get in harm's way (well assuming any kind of remotely even conflict, or one that is not in your favor).

Is anyone familiar enough with Libertarian thought to answer a question?

Say you have a society that is run on Libertarian principles.

Some other country or even organization, by actions effectively says to to this society "I'm going to kill you and take your stuff."

There is just nothing there to motivate anyone to sacrifice anything to defend it.

I also question whether a libertarian state would be any good at economics. In the end you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between it and any other plutarchy, other than the propaganda flavor that gets spouted.

Anonymous said...

If video games are any indication, then libertarians put up a hell of a fight.

Anonymous said...

Web libertoids were eagerly pimping the 2004 "Orange Revolution" for those of you afflicted with ADHD (or just opposed to reading other news sources)

Anonymous said...

"That's why patriots/nativists are necessary."

West Ukrainian nationalists were necessary to the neocons as tools. Now they will be thrown out. The lesson of all this is "don't be a tool, don't fall for divide and rule".

Anonymous said...

Just because we are not willing to be grunts in large impersonal bureaucracies called militaries does not mean we are unable to develop other (technological) means to defend our liberty and autonomy.

Watch out for those tough guys at Reason magazine!

2Degrees said...

With apologies to those who don't read Russian or Ukrainian, here's a collection of photos of all those killed in Kiev. Very few are female, but what is surprising is the number who seem to be the fathers of very young children.

http://atanoissapa.livejournal.com/797704.html

Anonymous said...

I really wish I'd meet a self-proclaimed libertarian who'd demonstrate an ability to participate in small-scale civic activity--one who had been a poll worker, or worked a suicide prevention hotline, or coached Little League baseball. The whole lot of them seem to all fall on the antisocial autistic spectrum to one extent or another.

roundeye said...

This was a straight up race war, slav v. Ukraine. The fact rhat we can't tell the difference between the two means nothing. Hutu v. tutsi is the samr.

Anonymous said...

I don't get it. Of course there are no libertarians in significant numbers in Ukraine, or anywhere other than the US. Mass libertarianism is an exclusively American phenomenon. So their absence from the Ukrainian events is obvious and tells us nothing.
Does Sailer not know this, or is there something I'm missing here? Can somebody please explain it to me?

Whiskey said...

The reason for a horror of nationalism is not purely Peter Brimelow's "Hitler's Revenge" but the fear that nationalism leads to death camps not just for Jews, but the vast majority of White people. The reason Hitler, and the Salem Witch trials, show up again and again in popular culture, is that the Achilles Heel of White people is the tendency to obtain "purity" in the group ... by killing people.

The vast enthusiasm of Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, and a "world without borders" and lots of non-Whites in White nations is essentially insurance against the last great War ever happening again.

Stupid in that regard, in that you won't see the Wehrmacht in Paris or Kiev or for that matter, Berlin. But understandable since all it takes is an accusation, a word, an allegation in that ultra-nationalist environment, and a rival over a girl (paging the Count of Monte Cristo), or a business deal, or a promotion, or anything at all, can send one to a death camp.

Non-Whites were sold short, on their ability to really kill a lot of White people. OTHER White people insistent on reaching racial or religious/ideological purity were deemed the real threat given their higher IQs and organizational ability. But as Stalin noted, quantity has its own quality.

Libertarianism is pretty old. And has a rich history in the West particularly Germany.

Art Deco said...

I think Drew Carey was semi-career military.

I think you find quite a number of tradesmen in small towns and rural areas whose outlook would be described as libertarian in essence, and a disproportionate share do have a stint in the military in their background. Their sensibilites are quite different from Bryan Caplan's.

Art Deco said...

I'd like to see Bryan Caplan answer that question.

Caplan would have to care about something going on outside his own skin.

Anonymous said...

Libertarians did fight for liberty. Ever hear of the Revolutionary War, which started in 1776? Don't Tread On Me!

Whiskey said...

Libertarians today seem to be basically Bryan Caplan types, but old style guys who wanted to be armed at all times, distrusted the State, and held to private networks describes most of Europe before 1200, and most of Europe after excluding England after the Glorious Revolution.

For most of human history, "nation" has been co-terminal with a corrupt aristocracy. Would YOU die for King John? Ludvig of Bavaria? You could argue that Libertarianism is merely the outgrowth taken to extremes of the Magna Carta and various other efforts of barons to curb the king. Married to the traditional peasant suspicion of the King impressing their sons for futile wars that end in disaster for them and booty for the king.

The idea of nationalism and a nation indeed is pretty new -- most human beings could not think of anything beyond a tribe and perhaps maybe a people. Heck going back to the Illiad, Greeks and Trojans spoke seemingly the same language, worshiped the same Gods, and fought over trivialities.

The core of libertarianism however: always always ALWAYS be armed, distrust the State, the Sovereign, and hold to private networks, is pretty old. Its just that Libertarians like to deny the link between the society of the Vendetta (at its worst) and their own philosophy.

Me, I like nationalism. Just limited from total extremes.

Anonymous said...

" Mass libertarianism is an exclusively American phenomenon."

The US government has been redistributing wealth from working, middle class whites to non-working blacks for many decades. The racial aspect of government redistribution and the taboo on talking about race (the real issue) have produced a level of hostility to statism among US whites that's very rare worldwide.

In many countries massive government involvement in the economy does not favor some ethnicities over others. And even when it does, the effect is very rarely as lopsided as in the US. The difference in productive capacity between southern and northern Italians or eastern and western Ukrainians is many, many times smaller than the difference between American whites and blacks.

As the immigration debacle continues in Europe, I would expect US-style hostility to statism to increase there. If East Asians continue to hold the line on immigration, they will never get a reason to fear statism.

The government is a tool like any other. It can be used in an enormous variety of ways. The idea that it's inherently bad is mostly a parochial US white misunderstanding.

Summary: yes, the US government is a serious net burden for American whites. But that doesn't imply anything about the nature of government in general.

To get back to the Ukraine, the industrial, Russian-speaking east finances the agricultural, Ukrainian-speaking west there. If anything, Galicians should be favorably predisposed to statism.

Jefferson said...

I hate when Libertarians starting getting all SWPL White guilt on me when they bring up the war on drugs and how we must end it so that so no more so-called "innocent" Black men in end up in prison.

These Libertarian idiots say the war on drugs is institutional racism against Black men.

These types of Libertarians probably live in lily White neighborhoods that are far away from vibrant diversity. And that is why they view Black men through rose colored lenses. These types of Libertarians believe that urban inner city Black men will all start behaving like the Japanese for example, if the war on drugs was put to an end.

Would polar bear hunting/knock out game for example end if the war on drugs ended ? I don't think so. The war on drugs is not the reason why the Black male is the most violent demographic group in America.

Laguna Beach Fogey said...

True, Steve.

The libertariantards are a fringe online movement.

You know as well as I do that nationalism is the future.

Maguro said...

Watch out for those tough guys at Reason magazine!

Yes, a real bunch of badasses. Nick Gillespie even has a leather jacket!

Survivor said...

The libertarians have been busy inviting Jose and Adeblogade into the good 'ole USA and thinking about freeing the inmates for having a 16th of an onze of hashish cos prohibition is RAY-CIS.

Anonymous said...

Libertarianism is a hothouse flower that cannot exist outside certain prosperous nations. Even so the prosperous Koreans and Japanese don't have any libertarians. Not to say I don't like some of what Ayn Rand had to say but....

Anonymous said...

The reason Hitler, and the Salem Witch trials, show up again and again in popular culture...

...is because they're shoe-horned in there by those with a particular ax to grind.

Mike said...

First Anon at 4:51...

Pleased to make your acquaintance.

I consider myself libertarian (I'm not sure if I would pass all the litmus tests). Make sure you see that is small "l" libertarian. I would not be a member of the Libertarian party any more than I would be a member of the R's or D's.

I have coached teams. I have participated in many school fundraisers (kids in Catholic schools). I am a past board member of a local trade organization, I was an officer in the Marines, I even once ran for city council (I'm so happy I lost).

There are a lot of us out there. I most dramatically part with the Caplan's of the world on immigration. I'm all for free markets in everything, but you have to preserve the culture first. I've traveled quite a bit and don't want to see other cultures become dominate in the U.S.

I don't think I'd pass all the litmus tests of the Steve-O-Sphere either, but I sure do enjoy stopping by. And I don't think anything that is said by Steve and the commenters is out of bounds in anyway.

I guess what I really am is a Classical Liberal.

I'm certain I'm not the only one reading Steve's blog.

Anonymous said...

With apologies to those who don't read Russian or Ukrainian, here's a collection of photos of all those killed in Kiev. Very few are female, but what is surprising is the number who seem to be the fathers of very young children.

This one (Oleg Ushnevych?) looks eerily like Canadian actor Nathan Fillion:

http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/atanoissapa/9273779/365981/365981_original.jpg

Anonymous said...

Of course there are no libertarians in significant numbers in Ukraine, or anywhere other than the US. Mass libertarianism is an exclusively American phenomenon.


Oh, I doubt that. Very few "libertarians" in the US are actually libertarians.

Many of them are simply ordinary liberals in the Republicans Party, who opt to call themselves "libertarians" in an effo. (There are still plenty of conservatives in the Democratic party as well, as odd as it may seem) They certainly do not support smaller government.

Then you have plenty of people who ought by rights to call themselves "conservative" in the GOP, but prefer to call themselves "libertarian" - often so they can can tell their liberal friends "Oh, I'm not one of those bad, stupid, racist republicans. No, I'm a libertarian. It's a way of deflecting criticism.

Those two groups probably make up 80-90% of all US "libertarians". And that's before we get to the Business-Class people who like to make libertarianish noises from time to time in an effort to get their way on open borders and so on.

The real libertarians are pretty damn rare, and they are proud of the fact they they never even vote.

Anonymous said...

Libertarians did fight for liberty. Ever hear of the Revolutionary War, which started in 1776? Don't Tread On Me!

The war was won in a 12 month period between the Battle of Kings Mountain and Yorktown. It was won by mostly-illiterate Scots-Irish who had participated in militia training since their 18th birthday. Don't forget their French and Spanish allies who blockaded the Chesapeake, the Mississippi and laid siege to Pensacola. "Don't Tread on Me" makes for a good bumper sticker but it did dick-squat in the Revolution.

Hunsdon said...

2Degrees said: here's a collection of photos of all those killed in Kiev. Very few are female, but what is surprising is the number who seem to be the fathers of very young children.

Hunsdon said: I'm pretty surprised they represent both sides. What a tragedy, and a waste, looking over the pictures. They pretty much all look like the guys I used to drink with in Almaty.

Anonymous said...

"Well, when Ukraine was in trouble, who fought for liberty?"

Are you talking about US nationals fighting for Ukrainian something or other? US Libertarians or perhaps paleo-cons are non interventionist. Some writers suggesting Ukraine breaking up, as libertarians have a fascination with secession. I don't know if there is an equivalent to libertarians in Ukraine. Suggesting one side or another is in favor or liberty based on US news coverage is impossible. I noticed that there were no general strikes, no farmers blocking traffic with combine harvesters, no miners driving enormous dump trucks into the center of the capital. I did not see widespread disturbances outside of the capital. So I tend to see the events as factions inside the capital warring. Not some desire by Ukrainians for 'liberty'.

On a personal note I doubt the existence of a well formed Ukrainian language or ethnicity independent of the other Slavs, Russia and Bulgaria. They all basically talk the same language and look the same even if they choose to pretend they speak different languages and are ethnically distinct.

Anonymous said...

Who knows? Ukraine may end up worse then before in a few years.

Anonymous said...

Libertarians did fight for liberty. Ever hear of the Revolutionary War, which started in 1776?


Exactly nothing about the American Revolution was libertarian, and much of it was explicitly counter to libertarian beliefs. But then libertarianism is a brand new ideology which was concocted in the 1960's and afterwards.


"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another ..."

The entire concept of a "people" is antithetical to libertarianism, they see only individuals. The notion of a "people" is "collectivist" and "statist" in their eyes.

"for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

You can practically see libertarian veins exploding as they read those words.

Don't even get me started on the reaction of the Founders to the idea of "gay marriage".

Charlesz Martel said...

How can you build a political organization around people who don't believe in political organizations? Similarly, If they believe in individualism über alles, how could anyone ever expect them to organize militarily?

Anonymous said...

Ayn Rand - "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

Americans Founders - "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."



A bunch of radical individualists whose entire view of the world boils down to "To hell with the rest of you, what's in MY best interests?" can never create a society or a civilization (that's such a collectivist thing to do) and they can never effectively oppose tyranny (ditto).

Anonymous said...

Of course there are no libertarians in significant numbers in Ukraine, or anywhere other than the US.

That's part of the point. Libertarians have an internally cohesive thought structure and punch above their weight philosophically but that doesn't translate into either mass support, or, among the few Libertarians that exist, the sort of mindset that would lead them to put it all on the line at the barricades.

In contrast it's all too easy to put together an ethnic movement.

AP said...

Right wing libertarianism is a Western European tradition. So not many libertarians in Ukrainian history. In general not much respect for property rights. After WW1 most of the movements were socialist or anarchist. With the exception of the West Ukrainian People’s Republic (the Galicians) who were the most protective of property rights.
“The Western Ukrainian People's Republic passed laws that confiscated vast manorial estates from private landlords and distributed this land to landless peasants. Other than in those limited cases, the right to private property was made fundamental and expropriation of lands was forbidden. This differentiated the policies of the West Ukrainian People's Republic from those of the socialistic Kiev-based Ukrainian government. But there is a famous “

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Ukrainian_People%27s_Republic

As for left wing libertarianism, there is a famous eastern Ukrainian anarchist leader, Nestor Makhno, leader of the Black Army during the civil war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno

In general Ukrainians throughout history have been pretty good at fighting and revolution and tearing the old system down. Not so good at ordered liberty.

2Degrees said...

Anonymous said:

On a personal note I doubt the existence of a well formed Ukrainian language or ethnicity independent of the other Slavs, Russia and Bulgaria. They all basically talk the same language and look the same even if they choose to pretend they speak different languages and are ethnically distinct.

In the West, people speak Ukrainian and in the East a watered down form called Surzhik. There is only limited comprehension between full Ukrainian spoken in Lviv and Russian spoken in Moscow. Bulgarian is quite a lot more different in that all the endings have fallen away and their is a definite article that you add to the end of nouns and adjectives. There are no articles in Russian or Ukrainian. The vocabulary is very largely the same. The ee sound in Russian is pronounced like it's being gulped in Ukrainian which means that Ukrainian often sounds ridiculous to Russians. Ukrainian and Russian are approximately as similar as Dutch and German.

The two languages that really are the same are Bulgarian and Macedonian.

Anonymous said...

People think the Founders were libertarian?

What's the libertarian line on Committees of Safety, to say nothing on tar and feathering?

Yeah I thought so.

Anonymous said...

Libertarians have an internally cohesive thought structure and punch above their weight philosophically


Right .... Let's look at the libertarian stance on morality. There are a few of them, all contradictory.

1) "There's no such thing as morality!"

2) "There is such a thing as morality, I know what it is, and you are wicked and evil if you don't do what I say!" (See e.g Bryan Caplan)

3 "Don't you dare try to impose your morality on me!"

Yeah, that's some consistency all right.

Libertarians "punch above their weight" not because they have wonderful ideas (their ideas make communism seem almost sensible) but because they are backed by rich and powerful people.

Anonymous said...

2Degrees said: here's a collection of photos of all those killed in Kiev.

What is not surprising is that very few of them are from Kiev and the large majority of them are from the Western part of the country. Supports the view that this was ethno-religious fight against pro-Russian East represented by Yanyk. Anyone who thinks that this is over is an idiot...

Reg Cæsar said...

Exactly nothing about the American Revolution was libertarian, and much of it was explicitly counter to libertarian beliefs. --Publius-- er, anonymous (is there anything more libertarian than "anonymous"? I mean, it has the same Greek prefix as "anarchist"… and "asexual")

Yes, that's why nowhere in the founding literature do you see the words "liberty" or "rights", except maybe as atrocities foisted upon them by George III. Instead, they agreed with fellow Founding Father Franklin that "…the Government has the definite duty to use all its power and resources to meet new social problems with new social controls..."

Don't even get me started on the reaction of the Founders to the idea of "gay marriage".

"Gay marriage" is entirely a creation of the state. Thus, only an anarchist would question the state's right to invent and impose it. Someone like Jennifer Roback Morse.

Marriage-- real marriage-- predates the state by thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of years. It is by definition an anarchist institution. Only the modern, illibertarian superstate has the arrogance to modify it.

jody said...

libertarians would say there shouldn't even be such a thing as ukraine, or any nations at all for that matter. borders are dumb and shouldn't exist anywhere. that would be their argument.

David said...

Libertarians in practice are cultural Marxists who grok usury. (And who therefore support neocon interventionism, color-coded revolutions, etc. - from the safety of social media, of course.)

Guys and gals who want lower taxes or who fear commies are Republicans. The commenter who said libertarian is shorthand for "non-racist/non-Evangelical-kook Republican" (my words) understands this well. Most of these folks would be horrified by Rand-Rothbard-Kaplan et. al. "-ism," i.e., by
taking the ideas seriously.

A general antipathy to overreaching government does not a libertarian make. Not even a small-l one. Better to describe yourself as a "small-r republican." Or, alternatively, as a Jeffersonian. Or again as an American imdividualist. The last time anyone could decently use the word libertarian was about 100 years ago, and even then it meant something like Thoreauvian or anti-social aesthete/curmudgeon.

Anonymous said...

Libertarians: liberals who don't want to pay taxes

Anonymous said...

Yup, those immigrants and their kids sure don't like to fight for their new country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Brigade_(U.S.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)

"The 442nd is considered to be the most decorated infantry regiment in the history of the United States Army."

Anonymous said...

Yup, those immigrants and their kids sure don't like to fight for their new country:

You forgot to include the Saint Patrick's Battalion.

The Saint Patrick's Battalion (Spanish: Batallón de San Patricio), formed and led by Jon Riley, was a unit of 175 to several hundred immigrants (accounts vary) and expatriates of European descent who fought as part of the Mexican Army against the United States in the Mexican–American War of 1846-8. Most of the battalion's members had deserted or defected from the United States Army.

Anonymous said...

Where were the libertarians in the Arab Spring?

Anonymous said...

Yes, that's why nowhere in the founding literature do you see the words "liberty" or "rights"..


Using the words "liberty" and "rights" does not make someone libertarian. You might as well have argued "Libertarians wear pants, and the Founders wore pants, so therefore the Founders were libertarians!"

You have to examine what they meant by "liberty" and "rights" and see if it is the same as what libertarians mean by these words. And if you do that you'll see .. it isn't the same. At all.

Anonymous said...

"Yes, that's why nowhere in the founding literature do you see the words "liberty" or "rights""

There are no rights or liberty in a free-for-all. Isn't Somalia pretty libertarian? Or have they organized a government by now?

Seriously, how would rights come into being in a libertarian setup? If I think it's my right to take away your rights, who will stop me from doing that in the absence of police, courts, jails, laws? You? What if I'm stronger, what if I have better weapons? Then I guess you won't have any rights. I've got a big house to build and I think slave labor is a great way to cut down on costs.

Another idiot in this thread has equated libertarianism with property rights. In the absence of laws, courts, jails, police, who's going to prevent me from taking away your property? You? What if I'm a faster shot than you are?

Anonymous said...

"The 442nd is considered to be the most decorated infantry regiment in the history of the United States Army."

Keep in mind that 20 of the 21 Medals of Honor won by that unit were giving out in 2000, fifty-five years after the war ended. These were upgrades made by Bill Clinton. I don't know the circumstances of each case, but I do know Clinton went on a tear that year doing what amounted to a disparate impact decision on MoHs.

Anonymous said...

There is a difference between libertarian and anarchist.

Anonymous said...

I think you find quite a number of tradesmen in small towns and rural areas whose outlook would be described as libertarian in essence, and a disproportionate share do have a stint in the military in their background. Their sensibilites are quite different from Bryan Caplan's.



As was already pointed out, the ranks of "libertarians" are greatly inflated by that fact that the same word is used to describe all sorts of different people with different (and mutually contradictory) beliefs.

Real libertarians believe in the "harm principle" - that it is morally wrong for anyone to initiate the use of force against another person. They can use force only to defend themselves. I don't know what your "military libertarians" actually are (most likely they are what we used to call "conservatives") but they are not libertarians.

Jay W said...

"That's why patriots/nativists are necessary. When the going gets tough, it's not the progs or the immigrants or the libertarians who will defend or take back, it's the people who will fight for their country and want to save it for their progeny."

I am an immigrant, and I have served in the US military.

So how many of you white supremacist "patriots/nativists" have done the same?

Talking is easy, doing is hard. So either put up or shut up.

Jay W said...

Also, these Fascist hooligans are only good at splitting up their own country because of their racialism. Not a good thing to aspire to. Then again, you white supremacists probably want to break apart the US, right? So much for patriotism.

Jay W said...

Finally, Ukraine's future is beyond grim. Its economy is destroyed, the country is split, and it is no more than a playground for outside powers. What a role model to aspire to.

Jay W said...

" kurt9 said...

The "reader" makes the assumption that libertarians are too pussy to defend their liberty and autonomy. Putting this assumption to test could prove very dangerous. Just because we are not willing to be grunts in large impersonal bureaucracies called militaries does not mean we are unable to develop other (technological) means to defend our liberty and autonomy."

In other words, you are all talk. Gotcha.

mahyar said...

Nestor Makhno was a Ukrainian libertarian.

Anonymous said...

I am an immigrant, and I have served in the US military.

So how many of you white supremacist "patriots/nativists" have done the same?

Talking is easy, doing is hard. So either put up or shut up.


Keep in mind you immigrated to this nation, presumably because it is highly functional and has a relatively great degree of political, personal and economic freedom. I imagine you could have immigrated to Mexico or some other non-Anglo part of the New World, but you did not.

With this in mind you need to remember that those patriots/nativists you denigrate actually were the ones who founded this nation and fought to establish it, without whom the nation you chose to come to would not exist.

So you served in the military, I did too. But no one in America has fought for the continued survival and freedom of America since 1812. All the wars since then have generally been elective, or caused by our meddling, and there was no imminent danger to the US.

Jay W said...

" ATBOTL said...

I suspect there are virtually no libertarians in Ukraine. I also suspect that virtually 100% of the people in Ukraine would be considered extreme right fascist maniacs if they were to be judged by the standards white, Christian Americans are in "our" media."

2/23/14, 4:01 PM"

Exactly. So this comparison is moot.

2degrees said...

Anonymous said

What is not surprising is that very few of them are from Kiev and the large majority of them are from the Western part of the country. Supports the view that this was ethno-religious fight against pro-Russian East represented by Yanyk. Anyone who thinks that this is over is an idiot...

I've looked through he first fifty names on the list of the dead and very few came from Kiev. Of those that did most were journalists. A few were from the East. One came from Kerch and a couple from Zaporizhia. One from the Donestsk Oblast. All the others had travelled from the West to take part in the demonstrations.

2Degrees said...

Jay W

I am not an American and I do not live in America.

Why did you join the US military? Was it to get into the US and which country do you hail from?

Anonymous said...

Also, these Fascist hooligans are only good at splitting up their own country because of their racialism. Not a good thing to aspire to. Then again, you white supremacists probably want to break apart the US, right? So much for patriotism.

Don't blame the people wanting to split along racial, ethnic or religious lines. Blame the power brokers who put together disparate peoples into nations that should never have been created, i.e. Yugoslavia, USSR, Iraq. Blame the power brokers who took relatively homogenous nations and deliberately engaged in radical population replacement, i.e. USA, UK and much of Europe.

You are blaming the wrong folks.

2Degrees said...

P.S.

Two of the killed were Georgian citizens

Jay W said...

"Whiskey said...

The reason for a horror of nationalism is not purely Peter Brimelow's "Hitler's Revenge" but the fear that nationalism leads to death camps not just for Jews, but the vast majority of White people. The reason Hitler, and the Salem Witch trials, show up again and again in popular culture, is that the Achilles Heel of White people is the tendency to obtain "purity" in the group ... by killing people.

The vast enthusiasm of Multiculturalism, Political Correctness, and a "world without borders" and lots of non-Whites in White nations is essentially insurance against the last great War ever happening again.

Stupid in that regard, in that you won't see the Wehrmacht in Paris or Kiev or for that matter, Berlin. But understandable since all it takes is an accusation, a word, an allegation in that ultra-nationalist environment, and a rival over a girl "

How is that stupid? Stupid is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result. So if nationalism and racialism triggered two world wars, maybe something else will stop it from happening again.

Jay W said...

Anyways, why is Steve ripping on the Libertarians?

Peter the Shark said...

The US government has been redistributing wealth from working, middle class whites to non-working blacks for many decades.

That is a typical libertarian fallacy, and an obvious fallacy. If that were true blacks would be richer, yet the black share of national wealth has basically decreased over the past 50 years. I agree that wealth is being redistributed from the white middle class, but that money is not staying in black households (may be "passing through" but it doesn't stay there long). See if you can guess which ethnic group has a significantly higher proportion of the national wealth than they did 50 years ago.

David said...

>In the absence of laws, courts, jails, police, who's going to prevent me from taking away your property? You? What if I'm a faster shot than you are?<

Libertarians are sometimes called "minarchists" ( = anarchists in favor of minimum government), preposterously enough.

They see the need for order but clam up about its establishing, about founding and maintaining the state.

Their opponents call themselves anarcho-capitalists (allegedly in favor of having no state). They say that the order that emerges from lawless markets won't involve coercion, or at least won't involve "real" coercion. When pressed, they speak of "competing governments," which realistically means rival Mafias.

Under anarcho-cap, law is to be established and defined, allegedly, by people most successful in markets (plutocracy). This would be bad enough (what about democracy? what about minority rights?). But since markets depend on law rather more than law depends on markets, law must be established first. The reality is that law would emerge not from markets, but from force.

Of course, anarcho-caps would argue that's what we have now, states based on violence. So what's the appeal of anarcho-cap, then? That private tyrannies would be its result. The winning, bloodiest warlords would rule their subjects in fiefdoms devoid of democracy or minority rights. "He who has the gold makes the rules" would be the governing principle.

So anarcho-cap or consistent libertarianism leads to gang warfare followed by totalitarian plutocracy (if you're lucky).

Critics of anarcho-cap always sneer it's too theoretical to exist in real life. But we saw something quite like it in Russia under Yeltsin, including the free market rhetoric.

"Smash the state" simply means start over again and put everything up for grabs. Property rights don't feature prominently in this proposal.

Jay W said...

countenance said...

" Libertarianism and a lot of -isms comes out of secure prosperous countries. Countries fighting for their existence and survival have no time for -isms, libertarian or otherwise.

But you can bet that if things work out well in The Ukraine, libertarians will take credit.

2/23/14, 4:10 PM"

How?

Jay W said...

" Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That's why patriots/nativists are necessary."

West Ukrainian nationalists were necessary to the neocons as tools. Now they will be thrown out. The lesson of all this is "don't be a tool, don't fall for divide and rule".

2/23/14, 4:26 PM"

Exactly. Tribalism can be easily manipulated by outside powers.

Jay W said...

"Art Deco said...

I'd like to see Bryan Caplan answer that question.

Caplan would have to care about something going on outside his own skin.

2/23/14, 5:23 PM"

I still do not quite understand why people here are ragging on the Libertarians.

Jay W said...

" Survivor said...

The libertarians have been busy inviting Jose and Adeblogade into the good 'ole USA and thinking about freeing the inmates for having a 16th of an onze of hashish cos prohibition is RAY-CIS.

2/23/14, 6:09 PM"

Or maybe the drug war is a complete waste of money?

Jay W said...

" Anonymous said...

Yup, those immigrants and their kids sure don't like to fight for their new country:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Brigade_(U.S.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)

"The 442nd is considered to be the most decorated infantry regiment in the history of the United States Army."

2/23/14, 9:04 PM"

But they are not white!!!

Jay W said...

" Anonymous said...

"The 442nd is considered to be the most decorated infantry regiment in the history of the United States Army."

Keep in mind that 20 of the 21 Medals of Honor won by that unit were giving out in 2000, fifty-five years after the war ended. These were upgrades made by Bill Clinton. I don't know the circumstances of each case, but I do know Clinton went on a tear that year doing what amounted to a disparate impact decision on MoHs.

2/23/14, 9:44 PM"

Even without the MoHs, they are still the most decorated. Oh, no, cognitive dissonance.

Jay W said...

" Anonymous said...

Libertarians: liberals who don't want to pay taxes

2/23/14, 9:04 PM"

Lol, I like this.

Jay W said...

"Anonymous said...

Where were the libertarians in the Arab Spring?"

These anti-libertarian jokes are funny and all, but I am still puzzled as to why you guys are against them. Ron Paul seems to be a good guy.

Jay W said...

" jody said...

libertarians would say there shouldn't even be such a thing as ukraine, or any nations at all for that matter. borders are dumb and shouldn't exist anywhere. that would be their argument.

2/23/14, 8:56 PM"

I think Steve confused Libertarians with Anarchists, who just wants to overthrow the government just because they have a knack for it.

Anonymous said...

Jay W,
You've got it all wrong. 'Multiracialism' in formerly homogenous nations makes bloody conflict MORE likely not less, an obvious point I would have thought. Isn't this the lesson of Ukraine? - not racial, I grant you, if it was racial it would be far, far worse, but based on perceived 'ethnic' diference nonetheless.
Isn't this the lesson of Yugoslavia of Northern Ireland, of India/Pakistan of Pakistan/Bangladesh of Biafra of Rwanda, of Israel/Palestine of hundreds of other bloody conficts, of most bloody conflicts, in fact?

Don't you think it isn't wise for homogenous nations to stay homogenous so that there is no possibility of this terrible phenomenom ever occurring in the first place?
Isn't 'prevention' better than 'cure'?

Anonymous said...

"The reason for a horror of nationalism is not purely Peter Brimelow's "Hitler's Revenge" but the fear that nationalism leads to death camps not just for Jews, but the vast majority of White people."

Millions of people were murdered in concentration camps by the Bolsheviks after the Russian revolution. The nationalist movements of the 1930s were a reaction to this.

People who talk about Hitler while neglecting to mention what the Bolsheviks did in the years before Hitler came to power are practicing deceit.

The main reason for fear of nationalism and national self-determination if if you are part of a group that wants to rule over other nations against their wishes.

.

"The idea of nationalism and a nation indeed is pretty new -- most human beings could not think of anything beyond a tribe and perhaps maybe a people."

It's not remotely new. It's simply biology on a larger scale.

extended family
clan
tribe
nation

It makes perfect sense to want the people who have power over you to be as related to you as possible.

.

Libertarians

There's a form of small town libertarianism which is good and a fake elite version. The elite version are simply corporate shills in disguise. A lot of younger people have been conned into this second form but they'll realize it's a neocon scam eventually.

Anonymous said...

The AP (Aggression Principle) defeats the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle), every time. Without fail.

Jay W said...

"Anonymous said...

If video games are any indication, then libertarians put up a hell of a fight.

2/23/14, 4:22 PM"

So only Libertarians play video games?

Jay W said...

" Anonymous said...

I don't get it. Of course there are no libertarians in significant numbers in Ukraine, or anywhere other than the US. Mass libertarianism is an exclusively American phenomenon. So their absence from the Ukrainian events is obvious and tells us nothing.
Does Sailer not know this, or is there something I'm missing here? Can somebody please explain it to me?

2/23/14, 5:00 PM"

I guess Steve meant that Libertarianism is the exact opposite of nationalism? Would that not be liberalism? I thought Libertarians are conservatives?

Jay W said...

" Jefferson said...

I hate when Libertarians starting getting all SWPL White guilt on me when they bring up the war on drugs and how we must end it so that so no more so-called "innocent" Black men in end up in prison."

You have to admit the war on drugs is a waste of money. Better use it to pay off the debt.

PhysicistDave said...

A lot of people think that both Steve Sailer and Bill Kristol are "conservatives."

I hope that most readers of this blog are able to draw finer distinctions.

Similarly, both Nick Gillespie (of Reason magazine) and Ron Paul have been described as "libertarians." Intelligent people should be able to see that they are no more similar than Sailer and Kristol.

Sometimes, noticing differences can be informative.

Dave Miller in Sacramento

PhysicistDave said...

David wrote:
>Libertarians are sometimes called "minarchists" ( = anarchists in favor of minimum government), preposterously enough.

No, not at all. I was in touch with a lot of libertarians (in and out of the Libertarian Party) forty years ago when the term came into use: “minarchist” is used as an antonym for “anarchist.” Some libertarians were and are minarchists (i.e., not anarchists); some are anarchists.

(For those who share my interest in the history of minor parties: there was a concordat between the minarchists and anarchists at the '74 Libertarian Party convention, the so-called “Treaty of Dallas.” I won't try to summarize the often bizarre twists and turns of the Libertarian Party in the last four decades, except to say that most libertarians seem not to be members of the Libertarian Party.)

Reg Caesar wrote:
>"Gay marriage" is entirely a creation of the state. Thus, only an anarchist would question the state's right to invent and impose it. Someone like Jennifer Roback Morse.

Yes, which is why some libertarians view Morse as a real libertarian and the gay-marriage fanatics as just old-style statists.

Again, the word “libertarian” is simply being used nowadays in many very different, mutually contradictory ways, rather like “conservative,” “democracy,” etc.

If anyone cares to actually look at a recent, readable, and brief presentation of the anarchist libertarian position, Gerard Casey's Libertarian Anarchy: Against the State would be worth reading.

But, not many people nowadays have the patience to actually read a book, I fear, even a short one.

Dave Miller in Sacramento

Anonymous said...

"Well, when Ukraine was in trouble, who fought for liberty? Where were you guys?"

I am not sure that they fought for liberty.

fnn said...

"The 442nd is considered to be the most decorated infantry regiment in the history of the United States Army."

An all-ethnic Japanese unit. Lack of diversity increases group cohesion and (all else being equal) improves performance. I wonder how well openly all-German-American or openly 100% Finnish-American units would have done?

fnn said...

THe period 1919-41 was the noble period in American history. Americans rejected the foolish meddling of Wilson and said no to militarism and imperialism. Eventually of course those sentiments were defeated byFDR's calculated mendacity and his combination of overt and covert plans to involve the US in the world war and build a postwar world order based on the American-Soviet alliance.

Hunsdon said...

Jay W said a whole bunch of stuff, but heck, he's new here. He also said: Ron Paul seems to be a good guy.

Hunsdon said: Liking Ron Paul is a sign of ideological soundness in my view. And he's certainly not the type of Reason, black jacket and shades libertarian that people here are referring to.

Tarrou said...

Where were the libertarians? Running an infantry squad while some armchair genius casts aspersions from the comfort of his home "office".

Don't fall prey to the internet strawman of the libertarian as an anarchist. We do just fine in the military. Pro-drugs, sex and guns? Most soldiers are libertarians, even if they don't know it.

Nothing stopping a libertarian from being a patriot and a nationalist, either.

Anonymous said...

The reason why neocons and libertards are not effective in the politics of Ukraine is this.

Mr. Anon said...

"kurt9 said...

The "reader" makes the assumption that libertarians are too pussy to defend their liberty and autonomy. Putting this assumption to test could prove very dangerous. Just because we are not willing to be grunts in large impersonal bureaucracies called militaries does not mean we are unable to develop other (technological) means to defend our liberty and autonomy."

Right. You'll build your own Iron-Man suit in your secret underground bunker with the help of your robot butler.

Mr. Anon said...

"Jay W said...

I am an immigrant, and I have served in the US military.

So how many of you white supremacist "patriots/nativists" have done the same?

Talking is easy, doing is hard. So either put up or shut up."

Throughout most of its history, serving in the military was not something that most Americans aspired to. This country was founded as explicity anti-militarist. The men who codified its laws and founded our form of government did not like standing armies, recognizing such institutions as being the tool and plaything of tyrants. Perhaps you do not understand this as you are not of the founding stock.

So do not presume to lecture me.

That you served as an enforcer for a corrupt imperial government does not impress me.

Anonymous said...

"Keep in mind that 20 of the 21 Medals of Honor won by that unit were giving out in 2000, fifty-five years after the war ended. These were upgrades made by Bill Clinton. I don't know the circumstances of each case, but I do know Clinton went on a tear that year doing what amounted to a disparate impact decision on MoHs."

Obama is doing it as well. Blacks saw very little combat in WW2, nonetheless it is rayciss that "enough" didn't win the MoH.

And Jews and "Hispanics"..blah blah, rinse and repeat.

Interesting how certain they aer that 19 were overlooked "because of their ethnicity". Everybody that came before us was racist.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-to-ward-medal-of-honor-to-19-soldiers-who-were-overlooked-because-of-their-ethnicity/2014/02/21/209594e8-9b10-11e3-975d-107dfef7b668_story.html

The Anti-Gnostic said...

I have Canadian friends and their reverence for their State and its governing apparatus is striking. Americans are a very different people. As I sometimes put it, I don't think Americans could be fascist if they wanted to be. Sure they fly flags and say the Pledge but as soon as it's not their guy in power, then it's all about the Second Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, the Declaration, etc.

"Libertarianism" is the sort of thing you get when a bunch of Anglo dissidents with Bibles under their arms arrive in the frontier. The Nation and the State just don't have the same kind of equivalence in the American consciousness that they do elsewhere.

I see flaws on both sides of this debate. I think the conservative technocrat-types would be disappointed with how incompetent government remains even if all their wishes came true. And until libertarians admit that Nations are even more real than Corporations, their movement is going nowhere.

As the former Marine above noted, there are a lot of engaged people out there who think government should be limited to public goods, and who recognize that nationality is an organic outer bound.

Am I the only one who notices that the libertarian movement is whiter than Augusta National? It's the "angry, young, white guys" movement according to Lindsey Graham. That's why I'm puzzled in turn as to 1) why so many libertarians deny race as an organizing social principle, and 2) why nationalist-minded whites are so hostile to libertarianism.

The idea of limited government seems genuinely hardwired (to lesser and greater extents) into Anglo-American psyches.

Reg Cæsar said...

The AP (Aggression Principle) defeats the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle), every time. Without fail.

…said Bonaparte to the now-extinct Swiss, after mocking Washington's Farewell Address.

Spoken like a true neocon.

Anonymous said...

I'm a libertarian out of the Ron Paul movement but all of this is basically spot. Remember that one of the founding fathers of libertarianism, Murray Rothbard(Rand+Friedman the others) , disliked libertarians so much he invented paleo-libertarianism and quit the Libertarian Party to join Buchanan/Gottfried and other paleo-conservatives.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://64.62.200.70/PERIODICAL/PDF/RothbardRockwellReport-1990may/1-6/

For a good analysis of the pschology of libertarians you should check out the always interesting Jonathan Haidt great study of libertarians. He basically confirms that libertarians are quite anti-social and not particularly close to conservatism at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmz10uQsTYE

I dislike libertarians for the same reasons and if you're excluding the old classical liberals from libertarians than the commenter is not far off.

Anonymous said...

"Just because we are not willing to be grunts in large impersonal bureaucracies called militaries does not mean we are unable to develop other (technological) means to defend our liberty and autonomy."

LOL, like what...hacking websites? Signing online petitions? Pray tell what arsenal of technological weapons enraged libertarian nerds would have at their disposal when the schoolyard bully shows up again to take their lunch money?

Anonymous said...

"The 442nd is considered to be the most decorated infantry regiment in the history of the United States Army."

2/23/14, 9:04 PM"

But they are not white!!!


They were not all Japanese. Their officers were white.

David said...

>"if things work out well in The Ukraine, libertarians will take credit"

> How?<

Because kewl social media and freedom. Much of the Egyptian revolution was directed out of Google and involved Twitter (so libertarians boast or boasted).

Reg Cæsar said...

Blame the power brokers who put together disparate peoples into nations [sic] that should never have been created, i.e. Yugoslavia, USSR, Iraq...

…Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas?

Anonymous said...

I think Steve confused Libertarians with Anarchists


A lot of Libertarians seem to have made the same mistake then.

Anonymous said...

These anti-libertarian jokes are funny and all, but I am still puzzled as to why you guys are against them.


Can you read? Can you understand what you read?

(Not a snarky question - you said you are a recent immigrant so it seems plausible that your English might be poor)

Anonymous said...

If Jay W is an immigrant who served in the (US) military then I'm the Tzar of all the Russias.

Marissa said...

That's why I'm puzzled in turn as to 1) why so many libertarians deny race as an organizing social principle

They are often painted with the racist brush by critics, it's likely a political defense. Here in Texas, a lot of libertarians were once 1) liberals and still indoctrinated into egalitarianism, 2) conservatives who simply keep their mouths shut when around the former.

Dan said...

Locking up blacks for possession is a great deal more constructive than failing to nail them for robbery and murder because of "no snitch" customs among the brethren.

Anonymous said...

Blame the power brokers who put together disparate peoples into nations [sic] that should never have been created, i.e. Yugoslavia, USSR, Iraq...

…Virginia, Maryland, the Carolinas?

Definitely. They are just as bad as our modern day farmers bringing in third worlders. Like the slavers of yesteryear, these modern day truck farmers will leave the rest of society with a permanent, alien underclass.

Anonymous said...

An all-ethnic Japanese unit. Lack of diversity increases group cohesion and (all else being equal) improves performance. I wonder how well openly all-German-American or openly 100% Finnish-American units would have done?

Certain black units, like the 24th regiment, did miserable in Korea. But I do agree with your point. In the UK they used to comprise regiments of lads from certain counties. Outside of certain units like the Paratroopers or Royal Marines, recruiting for most units was limited to a particular region. This was done to boost unit cohesion.

I don't know if this is still done, so anyone from the UK feel free to correct.

Anonymous said...

Some of you seem to be able to grasp that conservatives can run the gamut from neocons to paleocons, but are unable to do the same with libertarians.

Paleo-libertarians are very much in sync with paleo-conservatives which appear to be the vast majority of iSteve readers. Paleo-libs are closer to Pat Buchanan than they are Bryan Caplan.

Reg Cæsar said...

Some of you seem to be able to grasp that conservatives can run the gamut from neocons to paleocons, but are unable to do the same with libertarians. --anon

Indubitably. The best letter in the first couple of decades of Reason made your point in Sowellist terms: libertarians came in "constrained" and "unconstrained" varieties, realists and utopians.

That was in the sober Robert W Poole era. Now we're in the dizzy Gillespie period. Virginia Postrel was the bridge.

Cingoldby said...

listening to Libertarians go on about the non aggression principle and the non initiation of force, I've come to the conclusion that these fine moral sentiments are against reality and against the reality of human nature.

To be a libertarian is basically to be a pussy. Not turning up to the fight means that you automatically lose.

Anonymous said...

Some of you seem to be able to grasp that conservatives can run the gamut from neocons to paleocons, but are unable to do the same with libertarians.


That's a crock. "Neocons", so-called, are not any sort of conservative. (Any more than the "fiscal cons" are - the striking thing about self-described "fiscal-cons" is how fiscally liberal they are)



A "paleo-libertarian" is a just a regular conservative who doesn't believe in God.

Hunsdon said...

Anonydroid at 1:06 PM said: Outside of certain units like the Paratroopers or Royal Marines, recruiting for most units was limited to a particular region. This was done to boost unit cohesion.

I don't know if this is still done, so anyone from the UK feel free to correct.

Hunsdon said: Not from the UK (although the moniker is), but yes, that has mostly been done away with. In the interests of amalgamation and streamlining, units with a heritage going back to Waterloo and much, much further back, have been realigned, smooshed together, and generally lost their history and tradition.

As a former Marine, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of history and tradition when you are, as they say, "in the shit."

2Degrees said...

Concerning ethnically homogeneous battalions in the UK.

Yes, we had them in WW1 and there are Scottish, Welsh and Irish battalions to this day.

Each county had a unit such as the Sussex Riflemen and the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry.

In addition, there were the pals brigades such as the Tyneside Irish.

There was a move against this after WW1, because this meant that whole swathes of rural Britain suddenly found they had no young men.

Tetragrammaton said...

I'm not sure any of you looked more into libertarian principles and authors such as Lysander Spooner, Frederic Bastiat, Gustave Molinari (those are the older ones, theoretical foundations of libertarianism/anarchocapitalism are older than your right/left socialist views). Here's a quote from David Friedman about revolution, posted on Caplan's blog:

Civil disorder leads to more government, not less. It may topple one government, but it creates a situation in which people desire another and stronger. Hitler's regime followed the chaos of the Weimar years. Russian communism is a second example, a lesson for which the anarchists of Kronstadt paid dear. Napoleon is a third. Yet many radicals, and some anarchists, talk and act as though civil disruption were the road to freedom.

For those radicals whose vision of freedom is a new government run by themselves, revolution is not a totally unreasonable strategy, although they may be overly optimistic in thinking that they are the ones who will end up on top. For those of us whose enemy is not the government but government itself, it is a strategy of suicide.


So I'm not sure who is the pussy here... You are cheering for death and crippled young guys hoping you'll get more freedom when the right guys come in position. BTW, Ron Paul (libertarian) got the most military campaign contributions when he tried to battle with fascist in 2012. elections.

Libertarianism is connected with Austrian school of economy (works of Hayek, Mises, Menger etc.), and since you don't understand economics, you can't see what's behind some of things libertarians stand for
http://media2.policymic.com/fba210ad7f36185797f81be4b04a9463.gif


All of you in favor of protectionism should read this short text:
http://www.walkerd.people.cofc.edu/Readings/Trade/iowacarcrop.pdf

Jefferson said...

"You have to admit the war on drugs is a waste of money. Better use it to pay off the debt."

Will ending the war on drugs prevent future Knoxville massacres from occurring ? If you have never heard of the Knoxville massacre, do a google search.

Like I said, the war on drugs is not the reason why the Sub Saharans don't act like model minorities. The root of their behavior goes way deeper than that.

Jefferson said...

Why doesn't the war on drugs cause out of control crime rates in the White community ?

Why hasn't the war on drugs turned White communities into war zones where there are daily shoot outs between rival White drug dealers ?

Silver said...

listening to Libertarians go on about the non aggression principle and the non initiation of force, I've come to the conclusion that these fine moral sentiments are against reality and against the reality of human nature.

It'd be a stance taken in opposition to human nature only if libertarians were pretending that humans don't feel a need at times to initiate force. But this is not a libertarian assumption.

Libertarians simply consider the initiation of force immoral; they don't object to the use of retaliatory force, say, to enforce contracts or rein in criminals. Would you actually like to live in a society which considered the initiation of force moral?

Speaking for myself, my issues with libertarians: in the first place, their delusional negation of the value of collective social identities (racial identity in particular, since racial identity asks so little of an individual compared to religious or ethnic identity). Secondly, not only do libertarians insist on multiracialism, they tend to insist on denying racial reality - ie the denial that racial reality can provide insight into the workings or outcomes of a society. Thirdly, libertarians deny that members of a society have any interest in the demographic trends present in their society, hence have no interest in influencing those trends in any way. (Regarding the last, libertarians tend to come across as immigration boosters, but I think this derives from their belief that borders are illegitimate, thus it's more the case that they believe people be permitted to immigrate, not that immigrants should be sought out).

Anonymous said...

There were shootouts when poor whites were urban during Prohibition. There's plenty of white drug violence, but rural violence is by definition less trackable than urban violence.

Jefferson said...

"There were shootouts when poor whites were urban during Prohibition. There's plenty of white drug violence, but rural violence is by definition less trackable than urban violence."

West Virginia for example is full of poor White junkies who are addicted to crystal meth.

Yet West Virginia has one of the lowest per capita murder rate in the country. How do you explain that ?

The vast majority of White meth dealers in West Virginia are not behaving like the Sinaloa Mexican drug cartel where they go around killing everybody and cutting their body parts off into little pieces.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Speaking for myself, my issues with libertarians: in the first place, their delusional negation of the value of collective social identities (racial identity in particular, since racial identity asks so little of an individual compared to religious or ethnic identity).

Also, the State can't bequeath or take away racial identity. It's a natural outer bound for group loyalty. Libertarian sites have to do backflips avoiding the obvious.

Mr. Anon said...

"Jefferson said...

Will ending the war on drugs prevent future Knoxville massacres from occurring ? If you have never heard of the Knoxville massacre, do a google search."

Did pursuing the War on Drugs prevent the actual Knoxville massacre from happening?

Evidently not.

Anonymous said...

Libertarians simply consider the initiation of force immoral; they don't object to the use of retaliatory force, say, to enforce contracts or rein in criminals.


The use of force to enforce contracts IS the initiation of force, unless the word "initiation" means something other than its dictionary meaning.

Anonymous said...

I'm not sure any of you looked more into libertarian principles and authors such as Lysander Spooner, Frederic Bastiat, Gustave Molinari .... Libertarianism is connected with Austrian school of economy (works of Hayek, Mises, Menger etc.)


This is one of the many irritating things about libertarians - they have this habit of appropriating various historical figures as "libertarians", in rather the same way as the gay movement claims that everybody from Aristotle to Beethoven was gay.

Most of the people mentioned never even claimed to be libertarian. Spooner might have done so ... but then, he also claimed to be socialist (he was a member of the First International) and prior to the 1960's libertarianism was very different from what it is today, in fact was virtually the polar opposite of what it is today. It used to be an anti-capitalist movement, while today it exists mostly to worship capitalists.

since you don't understand economics

We understand economics. Libertarians don't.

Anonymous said...

The sneering contempt that some commenters have for the NAP is bizarre. Aggression is the fundamental moral error (obviously). The vast majority of people posses an inherent revulsion to aggression, which is why only a tiny minority commit violent crime, and even then usually only when under the influence of anger or some substance. And aggression is a tremendous financial risk, since it involves a significant capital investment and might not reap any rewards. Plus, it turns you into the bad guy, making people distrust you--which again is very bad for your long-term financial prospects.

And the idea that a state-less society would devolve into competing mini-tyrannies is laughable. Even the biggest megacorporations represent only a tiny fraction of the economy's total available wealth and resources. If Apple decided to go imperial, there are dozens of competitors chomping at the bit to absorb its employees, customers and investors.

When all the rich people are competing against each other, nobody can afford to waste money on immoral actions like theft or murder.

It's only when you have an organization like the State, which can mobilize effectively unlimited resources, and which the rich can bribe to do their bidding, that tyranny results.

But yes, most libertarians are embarrassingly defensive when it comes to progressive notions on race and society. Please don't always assume we actually believe that bullshit, in many cases it's just the crap you say to avoid further marginalizing yourself. You know, kind of like how a lot of outspoken race-realists are eager to turn around and bash libertarian views on economics just to demonstrate how "objective" they are.

In both cases you just make yourself look stupid. You can be a race realist with traditional family values and realize that economic regulation is necessary and that the State is stupid and pointless. You know, the views that pretty much all (white) Americans held pre-New Deal/Great Society/decades of pro-government public school propaganda.

I find it amusing that so many race-realists feel like they need to support white socialism to achieve their ends, when the reality is that a State-less society would converge very quickly to the sort of "social restrictions" (i.e., the racist kind) that many of would prefer. If it's really true (and, uh, it is) that blacks make bad customers and bad employees and bad students, there will be tremendous economic pressure to discriminate in business and in school. No white political party needed.

Silver said...

The use of force to enforce contracts IS the initiation of force, unless the word "initiation" means something other than its dictionary meaning.

You're right, and if you want to play "gotcha" with libertarians this is a good way to go about it. But I think most people's understanding is that in this case the force is retaliatory in nature. Also, it's been a while since I've mixed it up with libertarians, but I think many of them allow for the government to "initiate" force in this sense.

Silver said...

Please don't always assume we actually believe that bullshit, in many cases it's just the crap you say to avoid further marginalizing yourself.

I'd love to believe this is true, but there are two things which make me extremely skeptical.

(1) The total immigration insanity. Aggression is illegitimate; borders are the result of aggression; therefore borders are illegitimate. I think that's how the reasoning goes and libertarians are complete suckers for it. Then there's also the dirty little secret that many a "libertarian" is simply planning to get rich off immigration, which is another all but unbeatable obstacle.

(2) The reticence to take up even the most basic racially defensive postures of anti-anti-whitism. The impression one then gets is that libertarianism insists on the continuation of anti-whitism, as though it's a fundamental part of the libertarian worldview.

In my opinion a decent litmus test for an allegedly race-realist libertarian is: given the choice, would you prefer to live in a massively multiracial society that is every bit as culturally anti-white as is the case today, but is also dogmatically libertarian; or would you prefer to live in a racially sane society that is economically centre-left but is culturally marked by the absence of anti-white nonsense?

(By "racially sane" I mean composed of people that you would perceive as belonging to the "same race." Race is simple from a macro-racial perspective, but notoriously difficult to pin down once one delves into micro-definitions.)

Anonymous said...

+
They were not all Japanese. Their officers were white.

The officers in the black units were
white too.

Anonymous said...

But no one in America has fought for the continued survival and freedom of America since 1812.

1812 was a war of choice too. The US has *never* fought a war of pure self-defence, unless you count their initial rebellion.

Anonymous said...

Silver:

Yes, a lot of libertarians do believe the bullshit, which makes them no better than leftists.

(1) No, NOT all libertarians are complete suckers for it. I agree that a lot of them are, and I am critical of them. Ron Paul, for example. The fact is that borders are not the result of aggression, they are the result of agreements. Property borders are the sin qua non of civilized society, and they apply every bit as much to international borders as to intranational.

"Many" a libertarian? The vast majority of libertarians do not own businesses or have any leverage with the Feds.

(2) Which makes them different from 99% of the white conservatives we are hoping to attract, how? Like I said, most people toe the Party line just to protect themselves--libertarians more than most since they are already on the "fringe". Nevertheless, if you pay attention to what various libertarians say, (and I do) you will find that some libertarians are eager to bash whites and embrace progressive social norms, and other libertarians are strangely silent. Rothbardian libertarians (i.e., guys associated with the Mises Institute) tend to be very excited about Western Civ and have nothing but disdain for racial double standards, and generally avoid promoting anything anti-white. This doesn't stop them from blaming all black problems on the Great Society, though (facepalm)--that is just too much to resist.

Some examples of "racially conscious" libertarians include Murray Rothbard (of course), Hans Herman Hoppe (who was reviewed favorably by AmRen), Charles Murray (duh), and Lew Rockwell. Hoppe in particular reflects the view that I think is pretty obvious: libertarian societies will self-segregated into group enclaves. What's not to like?

And that is the answer to your litmus test. A "dogmatically libertarian" society would not oppose (or be able to oppose) whites grouping together to the exclusion of others. Nor would it be able to continue the endless stream of anti-white propaganda; absolute control over the education system would be too expensive, and there's no Civil Rights Act (let alone any Diversity Police) to ensure your behavior is kosher. The sort of society you propose is self-contradictory. Not to mention the fact that the people who are most anti-white are also the people most opposed to libertarianism, because it takes away their ability to enforce anti-white policies. So we would get to have our cake and eat it too.

Also, and I guess you and a lot of others would disagree, but frankly I am amazed at how quickly race-realists are to 1) ignore the fact that "economic leftism" aka socialism/communism (whatever nationalistic ideals some of its original proponents may have claimed) was the very thing that gave cultural leftists the foothold they needed to destroy white culture.

That is to say: I care just as much about my white American cultural heritage (i.e., libertarian capitalism) as I do people who look like me. Why are so many race-realists willing to sacrifice the former for the latter? I think that is every bit as anti-white as the leftists.

It is amusing how many of us uncritically adopt leftist complaints about white economics. The reality, of course, is that the Left is wrong about everything--not just race.

==========================

"The use of force to enforce contracts IS the initiation of force, unless the word "initiation" means something other than its dictionary meaning."
"You're right, and if you want to play "gotcha" with libertarians this is a good way to go about it."


Why would a contract need to be enforced, unless one of the parties is willfully violating it? The confusion isn't over what "initiation" means--the violator is obviously the initiator, it's over what entails "aggression". And since all contracts involve some kind of exchange, violating a contract is theft, aka aggression. So, enforcing contracts is no problem. Yawn.

Anonymous said...

aggression is a tremendous financial risk, since it involves a significant capital investment and might not reap any rewards.


If Paul hits Peter over the head with a rock and takes his stuff (for whatever meaning of "stuff") this a obviously not a "significant capital investment" and the risk to reward ratio is favorable to Paul.

If aggression was as self-evidently pointless as you try to make it out to be, aggression would be vanishingly rare among humans rather than a commonplace occurrence.

A fundamental problem with the NAP is that it favors the existing rich and powerful over everyone else - even though in many cases they themselves got rich and powerful through aggression. Libertarianism is the natural position of any ruling class - "We should all be able to do what we want to do as long as we don't imitate physical violence against another person" enables the aristocrat to throw off all shackles on his own behavior while restraining his potential enemies.


Anonymous said...

Why would a contract need to be enforced, unless one of the parties is willfully violating it? The confusion isn't over what "initiation" means--the violator is obviously the initiator, it's over what entails "aggression".


That's a bizarre and tendentious reading of the situation. If you sign a contract to buy a car, then fail to make the payments on it, your violation of contract does not make you an initiator of violence.


The fact is that borders are not the result of aggression, they are the result of agreements.


In practice they are both. For instance the current border between the US and Mexico is the result of aggression and then of a treaty, or "agreement".


"economic leftism" aka socialism/communism (whatever nationalistic ideals some of its original proponents may have claimed) was the very thing that gave cultural leftists the foothold they needed to destroy white culture.


That's simply untrue. The countries which most assiduously practiced economic leftistism/socialism/communism seem to be remarkably resistant to cultural leftism. See Russia, China, etc. Cultural leftism seems to be a disease which attacks free market countries, not socialist ones. That's not a defense of socialism, just an observation of the way the world actually works.

Anonymous said...

1) Aggression by private individuals is vanishingly rare in high-IQ societies, except when state-sanctioned.

2) Paul is going to be caught and punished by the large set of parties who have a vested interest in stopping aggression. Such as all of Peter's neighbors who want the community to stay safe, and all the nearby businessmen who would prefer not to employ thieves like Paul. So besides gaining nothing, Paul becomes unemployable and completely exploitable because everyone knows he can't be trusted.

3) If Paul plans to actually make a living off of theft, suddenly the capital investments become very, very large. He has to have a buyer, he has to have a network of trustworthy accomplices to lie for him, he has to find patsies to take the blame, etc. All of this costs a lot of money: the buyer will be paying well below market value to account for the risk of moving stolen goods, his accomplices will need to be paid to keep their mouths shut, etc. If Paul is really that clever and really has that much capital at his disposal, he would be vastly better off simply starting a business a turning a profit morally.

4) However, perhaps Peter is an asshole who goes on the internet preaching the value of aggression, and maybe nobody cares to help and Paul gets off scot free. Could be a lesson in that. A libertarian society would not be very forgiving to assholes. And it would be much less forgiving to aggressors than statist societies are.

5) If you turn back the clock a few generations, the vast, vast majority of rich people in America got rich without the slightest hint of aggression (i.e., theft). And the only time people got rich from theft is when they got the state to sponsor it (i.e., Madoff and other banksters). No one got rich from purely private organizations based around theft.

6) How, uh, is this aristocrat supposed to "restrain" his enemies? Logical inconsistency is the natural position of socialists. The amount of wealth any one aristocrat has at his disposal is negligible compared to the whole. He has no more ability to get away with abuse than do you.

Anonymous said...

If you sign a contract to buy a car, then fail to make the payments on it, your violation of contract does not make you an initiator of violence.

There you go, purposely confusing what aggression entails. I never said anything about violence. The NAP isn't limited to violence. As you have so cleverly not deduced, theft represents as an initiation of force even when no physical violence is involved.

In practice they are both. For instance the current border between the US and Mexico is the result of aggression and then of a treaty, or "agreement".

The borders of Vermont were not the result of aggression. The borders of your property (if you own any) where not the result of aggression. When people cannot come to an agreement concerning borders (or whatever), violence is often the result, sure. Irrelevant.

The countries which most assiduously practiced economic leftistism/socialism/communism seem to be remarkably resistant to cultural leftism. See Russia, China, etc.

Who was trying to impose cultural leftism on those countries, for them to need to "resist"?

Face the facts: America would not have lost the culture war if Wilson and Roosevelt and the rest had never tried to implement left-wing economic policies. Increased government power translated into school propaganda, and the host of special interest groups (I'm looking at you, unions) who fund the left's political machine.

Anonymous said...

The pragmatic answer to "what's in my best interest"? Is protection in numbers, a militia, and to prevent any one or thing from concentrating too much power, no monarchy and state's rights. That's libertarianism to me and I think T Jefferson would agree. In the words of chubby chorizo: "to each his own and leave me the fuck alone!" You can define "each" and "me" in the plural. As in referencing a group or groups.

Bob Williams said...

I think the very long thread above contained at least forty different definitions of libertarianism - no wonder everyone is talking past each other. The Rothbardian Caste/Class Analysis clearly illustrates how a wealthy few wield the state like a cudgel against everyone else. If you're blaming anyone but the financial/industrial/military elite for what's happening, then their information warfare and CIA-sponsored text books are working well for the status quo. Remember that in a freely spontaneous economic order, there are no corporations - corporations are creatures of the state. The state and their corporations are the problem, not the solution.