Libertarians should not align with the Alt-Right or support Trump

[powder]

 

 

I don't understand what is very confusing about this formula:

 

1. The West is the closest thing to anarchy humans have ever seen, and it's the only hope of leading us there.

2. If the West goes, then it's all over. The weapon technology and surveillance state of the earth would never allow freedom in any form to emerge again.

3. Donald Trump and the movement he is symbolizing (anti-Globalism, restore the republic of the US), is the last real form of resistance to pull the West from falling over the cliff.

4. Thus Trump, by saving the West (for now), is giving the chance for anarchy in the future. If you're an anarchist and not supporting Trump and what he's done so far, you're bullshitting yourself with fluffy nonsense.

This has been challenged in other threads but I will state it again.  These are assertions, and predictions, and no one can know what will happen in the future.  This is the collectivist strategy that is always used to tell us what is best for everyone and how to best achieve or protect our freedoms.  

 

I can imagine other ways in which the western way of life may avoid being destroyed without petitioning the ruling class to intervene.  Some here may be too young to remember the Cold War stuff that threatened western civilization with the possibility of war and the increasing expansion of Communism.  Almost everyone agreed that it seemed like a legitimate enough threat to advocate for massive government expansion and intervention.  Remember how that ended?  

[_LiveFree_]

You're right. So please leave. And don't return.

 

 

I stand by what I said. 

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

This has been challenged in other threads but I will state it again.  These are assertions, and predictions, and no one can know what will happen in the future.

 

Ah, I see. So if there is a hostile army marching towards me and I can see it in the distance, I should refrain from making assertions and predictions about say, running away or forming an army to defend myself, because I can't know what will happen in the future.

[DaVinci]

Ah, I see. So if there is a hostile army marching towards me and I can see it in the distance, I should refrain from making assertions and predictions about say, running away or forming an army to defend myself, because I can't know what will happen in the future.

 

The problem is that it just isn't as clear cut as that. This isn't Lord of the Rings where all the orcs happen to be bad guys for some reason, and all the humans happen to be good guys. This is real life. There are people on the left who would view you as the enemy. How will you defend yourself from this approaching army, and from the army inside your walls. The right is fighting a two front war, and that never ends well. 

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

The problem is that it just isn't as clear cut as that. This isn't Lord of the Rings where all the orcs happen to be bad guys for some reason, and all the humans happen to be good guys. This is real life. There are people on the left who would view you as the enemy. How will you defend yourself from this approaching army, and from the army inside your walls. The right is fighting a two front war, and that never ends well. 

 

Would you say it's not clear cut in Europe, too?

[powder]

Ah, I see. So if there is a hostile army marching towards me and I can see it in the distance, I should refrain from making assertions and predictions about say, running away or forming an army to defend myself, because I can't know what will happen in the future.

nope.  I was responding to your post, but not for your benefit.  

[DaVinci]

Would you say it's not clear cut in Europe, too?

 

To your analogy, the invading army is much closer, and so is more clearly visible than the enemy on the horizon, but there are still those inside the walls who view you as the enemy. You know this. I don't have to tell you that people on the left, including that guy standing next to you, sees you as the enemy. So what do you do about it? How do you defeat the army marching on your walls when the guy next to you is lowering the drawbridge? You convince him that the approaching army is the enemy, right? How well is that working out so far? Sure, there are some on the left who have switched sides, but arguably the tactics being used to draw people away from the left are happening slower than the army is approaching, and in fact we see a surge of people on the left hardening their own defenses in response to who they view as their enemy attacking them. 

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

How well is that working out so far? 

 

It's working fucking excellent. We got Trump elected.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Democrats favored Trump 57% after his address to congress. I don't know how anyone can say leftism is growing stronger or at least isn't decelerating unless they are emotionally triggered.

 

Even if there was some 99% doomsday scenario where leftists win no matter what, what happened to 'better to fight standing then submit to evil on my knees'?

[David Ottinger]

For me, the argument for the state has always been an argument for war.  And, the gun in the room analogy hits the nail on the head for me.  i.e. People fight for that gun until totalitarianism eventually emerges. 

 

So, while I agree that Anarcho-capitalism is a valid antithesis to the state.  And, I think Voluntaryism is the thesis thereafter which gives us a heading.  There is still the pragmatic dilemma of: Who will protect the infant while it matures?

 

In my many years of studying this school of thought, we're ultimately trying to overcome war.  But, what happens when you meet an adversary that does not care to be reasoned with while actively pursues total control over the governing institutions under the illusion of best intentions?  "It's all for the greater good."

 

We can't all just exit the room leaving the retards to fight it out and hopefully kill each other.  As long as there is the gun, war will emerge. 

 

Over the many years trying to reason with these "liberals," I have watched them double down and become polarized towards advocating communism.  They make no apologies about wanting total control over the governing institutions.  This is what they fight for.  More importantly, they have been winning.  

 

What good is anarcho-capitalism, voluntaryism, or libertarianism when you're dead?

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think this conversation should let up.  But, in light of current events, do we have a horse in the race?  Either our horse failed to make it out of the gate, or she doesn't exist, i.e. The stage of infancy for this voluntary form of governance has yet to be born. 

 

Or, technically, this conversation is it.  I've watched it grow.  I've helped it grow.  But, who is going to protect it from the self-righteous SJWs (or whatever you want to call them) from reaching for the gun and outlawing reason as hate speech?

 

I'm strongly opposed to war, but I'm also not a pacifist.  If the virtuous among us allow the might to fall in the wrong hands, then all is lost.  This has always been the ultimate argument in favor of the state. 

[powder]

People fight for that gun until totalitarianism eventually emerges,... 

...This has always been the ultimate argument in favor of the state. 

 

 

 ..."But in light of current events"  has always been the argument for the state.  

[mbalrog6]

I have read "Biohistory: Decline and fall of the west" by Jim Penman, and I have to say that there is a statement made in their that true in the case of america. That is that the government tends to be a reflection of the culture of the people in that area. That is why a republic democracy can not exist in a middle eastern country today. I feel the same may be true of america. The american people are not ready to have a Libertarian government. That is evident by the way that Trump is being treated. We (Libertarians) are the anomaly, the minority of the people, so we may all understand what needs to happen but we need more in our ranks. If you want to move towards a Libertarian government then you will need to take the steps to move the culture in that direction. I think Trump is a good step in that direction. However, until the culture changes it will not happen. I have to say we (Americans as I was born in California) are one of the closest current cultures to a full blown Libertarian culture, so hopefully one day we will achieve it. The ground is covered by an army one inch at a time until the miles have been marched. Trump is one of those inches. 

[shirgall]

It's working fucking excellent. We got Trump elected.

 

I need to add to this: getting Trump elected made a lot more people aware of just how entrenched the bureaucratic leviathan is, and how hard it will fight to protect its power and reach than any campaign speech I ever gave or supported in the Libertarian Party.

[David Ottinger]

 ..."But in light of current events"  has always been the argument for the state.  

 

This doesn't address my point.

[Erwin]

On 2/15/2017 at 4:42 AM, jrodefeld said:

My concern is that some libertarians, including Stefan, appear to have thrown in their lot with the Alt-Right.  Yet the Alt-Right represents it's own unique brand of authoritarianism.

Most libertarians do not support Trump. Also, Stefan doesn't particularly care about labels. He simply applies the NAP to its logical conclusions, wherever it takes him. Trump is more in line with the NAP than any other leader.

The Alt Right explicitly refer to Stefan (and similar figures) as Alt Light to differentiate. The Alt Right is not authoritarian. Most people don't know this but the Alt Right has its own left-right divide along economic issues. This is because the Alt Right has no foundation in economics or ethics. It is about identity, and pride in our heritage. It is perfectly possible to be part of the Alt Right movement and still adhere to the NAP, as is the case for many Alt Righters (like me).

[Tyler H]

9 hours ago, Erwin said:

It is perfectly possible to be part of the Alt Right movement and still adhere to the NAP, as is the case for many Alt Righters (like me).

Could you give me a quick synopsis of the major tenets of the movement?  It's hard to sift through all the main stream propaganda. I didn't think the group was consistent with the NAP, but I'm open to be corrected. 

[Erwin]

1 hour ago, Tyler H said:

Could you give me a quick synopsis of the major tenets of the movement?  It's hard to sift through all the main stream propaganda. I didn't think the group was consistent with the NAP, but I'm open to be corrected. 

Tenets:

- Race realism

- Race is the foundation of identity / culture

- People prefer their own

When left to our own devices, most people tend to group with their own, like your typical cafeteria. We are asking for the freedom to do that. Being against forced diversity is quite pro-NAP the way I see it.

Also, when you look at today's ethnostates, they tend to have fewer problems compared to us. Less problems, less gov spending, and therefore more NAP.

[Tyler H]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

Tenets:

- Race realism

- Race is the foundation of identity / culture

- People prefer their own

When left to our own devices, most people tend to group with their own, like your typical cafeteria. We are asking for the freedom to do that. Being against forced diversity is quite pro-NAP the way I see it.

Also, when you look at today's ethnostates, they tend to have fewer problems compared to us. Less problems, less gov spending, and therefore more NAP.

Do they not advocate for a government that continues to maintain a monopoly on the initiation of force? I imagine they must align with the right wing in some respects otherwise they'd just be called separatists, right?

This may be up for debate, but I don't think you can have more or less NAP. It's a principle; your actions are either consistent with it or they are not. 

[Meister]

The political left is clearly anti-men and anti-white people. I'm a white man ... My enemies enemy is my friend. Go alt right!

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, Tyler H said:

This may be up for debate, but I don't think you can have more or less NAP. It's a principle; your actions are either consistent with it or they are not. 

Compared to what? The "Free Society"?

What is the point of philosophy if not to apply it in the real world? In the real world, we have limited options. Right now, Free Society isn't one of them.

The ethnostate is the most NAP option among all the options available to us currently, imo.

 

2 hours ago, Tyler H said:

Do they not advocate for a government that continues to maintain a monopoly on the initiation of force?

Most do, yes. But so does Trump. And yet, he's more NAP that Hillary.

[Tyler H]

19 hours ago, Erwin said:

Compared to what? The "Free Society"?

I'm not sure what you're trying to compare. 

19 hours ago, Erwin said:

What is the point of philosophy if not to apply it in the real world? In the real world, we have limited options. Right now, Free Society isn't one of them.

I thought we were talking about whether or not it's possible to be in the Alt-right and adhere to the NAP, not discussing available options. 

I do agree that those who do adhere to the NAP can measure other's actions in reference to the NAP vis-à-vis how often the principle is violated, and make a judgement that this group is closer to my ideal than that group.  However, I wouldn't say a libertarian who hits their kids adheres to the non-aggression principle as much as I wouldn't say that anyone who advocates the use of force against people for refusing to pay for services for which they did not ask adheres to it. 

So if a group violates the NAP, how can you count yourself among them and say you adhere to the NAP?

[Erwin]

8 hours ago, Tyler H said:

I'm not sure what you're trying to compare.

I'm trying to compare the options available to us. If we were to be puritan about the NAP, none of us would have voted Trump because he is a statist. Most of us prefer Trump, because he was the more NAP candidate, relative to HC.

9 hours ago, Tyler H said:

I thought we were talking about whether or not it's possible to be in the Alt-right and adhere to the NAP, not discussing available options. 

I do agree that those who do adhere to the NAP can measure other's actions in reference to the NAP vis-à-vis how often the principle is violated, and make a judgement that this group is closer to my ideal than that group.  However, I wouldn't say a libertarian who hits their kids adheres to the non-aggression principle as much as I wouldn't say that anyone who advocates the use of force against people for refusing to pay for services for which they did not ask adheres to it. 

So if a group violates the NAP, how can you count yourself among them and say you adhere to the NAP?

The Alt Right is not an ideology. It is a racial movement. Most Alt Righters are statists, but the statism itself is not what the movement is about, but rather what most Alt Righters see as the solution.

In my case, I think our free society is a racially segregated society (white society for us), since people prefer their own. So this is perfectly Alt Right, and perfectly voluntary association. I don't see how this violates the NAP.

[plato85]

It's not a racial movement, that's the narrative the left push.

The alt-right is a reaction to political correctness. It is a collection of people who refuse to be politically correct and often actively deliberately stir up political correctness to get over reactions to show how ridiculous PC is.

[Erwin]

3 minutes ago, plato85 said:

It's not a racial movement, that's the narrative the left push.

The alt-right is a reaction to political correctness. It is a collection of people who refuse to be politically correct and often actively deliberately stir up political correctness to get over reactions to show how ridiculous PC is.

Noooooo. 100% racial identity. 

In the words of Jared Taylor himself:

 

[Tyler H]

10 hours ago, Erwin said:

I'm trying to compare the options available to us. If we were to be puritan about the NAP, none of us would have voted Trump because he is a statist. Most of us prefer Trump, because he was the more NAP candidate, relative to HC.

The Alt Right is not an ideology. It is a racial movement. Most Alt Righters are statists, but the statism itself is not what the movement is about, but rather what most Alt Righters see as the solution.

In my case, I think our free society is a racially segregated society (white society for us), since people prefer their own. So this is perfectly Alt Right, and perfectly voluntary association. I don't see how this violates the NAP.

No objection there. In a free society people can live however they want as long as the participation is voluntary. There can be little communist communities, constitutional republics, whatever. However I'm still confused; why call themselves Alt-Right, why not just white separatist? Why ethnostate, why not just freedom of association? Do you see how these terms imply a statist association?

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

On 4/23/2017 at 10:06 AM, Tyler H said:

This may be up for debate, but I don't think you can have more or less NAP. It's a principle; your actions are either consistent with it or they are not. 

There is more NAP in the US today than in the USSR under Stalin. And I'm happy as hell to be in the former rather than the latter.

[Erwin]

3 hours ago, Tyler H said:

why call themselves Alt-Right, why not just white separatist? Why ethnostate, why not just freedom of association? Do you see how these terms imply a statist association?

Couple reasons, history and context. The history is because the "alternative right" originally referred to not just white separatists but also to what we today refer to as the Alt Light (e.g. Pat Buchanan, Gavin Mcinness, etc). As for context, the Alt Right is a reactionary movement meant to be an alternative to the Neocons (neo-cucks? lol) and the libs. White separatism was never a reactionary movement, it just was.

As for ethnostates, consider this. An-Caps like Stefan are generally referred to as Alt Light. Most Alt Lighters are statists too. We aren't. So no, I fail too see the statist association.

[plato85]

People are either more liberal minded or more conservative minded, and there are liberal minded and conservative minded people on both sides of politics just as there is idealism on both sides of politics. Conservative minded people are more idealistic and collective, liberal minded people are more independent.

In the old days the division between the left and the right was more simple, the left and the right both had a Christian outlook. The conservatives were more and idealistic Christians, and they tried to push their 'modernist' lifestyle onto everyone. They wanted everyone to fit into the perfect mold of a stoic christian nuclear family. The Left tried to reign in the government and churches influence. That was the main difference between left and right in politics.

Then in the 1930s FDR came along and offered 'The New Deal' which completely changed politics. The new deal was a trade off of liberal and authoritarian values. The trade off was a bigger state in return for civil rights. The 'Social Liberals' lifted the prohibition, fought for new rights for workers, women, and coloured. From the time of FDR, 'social liberals' (as opposed to 'classical liberals' / libertarians) fought for equal rights under the law. That's what 'equality' used to mean.

Since then, the conservatives and the 'classical liberals' have been grouped together as right wing, but this always was is a division. Because most liberal minded people were voting with the left, conservatives minded people dominated the right.

By the end of the 1980s FDRs 'social liberal' agenda for equal rights was pretty close to complete, but no one announced that the agenda was complete. Everyone had equal rights under the law. Because this agenda was complete, and the left had the status quo, the left became idealistic and conservative. They told everyone that what they were really after was 'equality,' but they changed the meaning of the word equality from equal rights, to something else, but at the time most people didn't realise it, and the rusted on liberal minded voters continued voting with the left. 'Equality' is their brand of social engineering. It's about changing the way people think and deconstructing a way of life. Rather that equal rights they're trying to make men and women the same.... This of course is authoritarian. It started more subtly and became really obvious over the last 8 years.

So recently liberal minded people started flocking to the right. It has changed the balance of liberals/conservatives in the right-wing, but it has also given more power to the 'classical conservatives'.

The left are no longer for rights or freedoms, they are fighting for a bigger state and for social engineering. The left are the status quo, and they are becoming more and more authoritarian. The left are now THE conservatives. Anyone with 'classical conservative' ideas is now radical. The meanings of all our political language have changed so much since the 1930s that it's hard to even talk about the changes in our political/philosophic outlooks without constantly re-defining what you mean.

[Tyler H]

On 4/25/2017 at 10:17 AM, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

There is more NAP in the US today than in the USSR under Stalin. And I'm happy as hell to be in the former rather than the latter.

Like I said before, if you mean there are fewer violations of the NAP then I completely agree. You wouldn't say there is more or less scientific method in this experiment. Either the scientific method was followed or it wasn't. In the same vein anything that isn't consistent with the NAP should not at all be confused with adherence to the NAP else it soils the principle, just as saying any experiment that failed to follow the scientific method did follow the scientific method. Blur the line and the manipulators and looters will take advantage. That's my concern with the phraseology. Perhaps I'm just being nitpicky but I do have the urge to push back, and I think that's the reason but I'm open to correction. 

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

There is more scientific method in Isaac Newton's experiments from the 1600s than coming from the climate change scare groups. There is more scientific method coming from the climate change scare groups than the psychic palm reader down the street.

The climate change scare groups have to use enough scientific method in order to fool you. Increased CO2 does have something to do with warming, but the conclusions that are drawn from it are drastic.

The "life line" on your palm may have something to do with your personality, but I'll be fucked if the palm reader has done any rigorous research as to the connection.

[Tyler H]

40 minutes ago, Dylan Lawrence Moore said:

There is more scientific method in Isaac Newton's experiments from the 1600s than coming from the climate change scare groups. There is more scientific method coming from the climate change scare groups than the psychic palm reader down the street.

The climate change scare groups have to use enough scientific method in order to fool you. Increased CO2 does have something to do with warming, but the conclusions that are drawn from it are drastic.

The "life line" on your palm may have something to do with your personality, but I'll be fucked if the palm reader has done any rigorous research as to the connection.

My argument is that anything less than the scientific method is not the scientific method at all. The scientific method is a set of steps, each necessary but not sufficient. If you skip a step or vary from the method in any way then you are no longer adhering to the scientific method.  You may be following some steps of the scientific method, but without all the constituent parts you do not have the scientific method. Saying people who manipulate data to advance their own agenda are adhering to the scientific method in any way is exactly the kind obfuscation I worry about permeating the philosophical arena. 

The same with the NAP. It's a principle which posits that all actions are allowed but for actions of physical aggression. Therefore if you act in a physically aggressive way, you are no longer adhering to the NAP. If you make the exception that there are gradations and there is no way to adhere to it in the ideal, then you leave a crack in the foundation for evil to gain social acceptance. 

I really think the language and specificity are important, especially with the constant co-opting of language by sophists. 

[DaVinci]

I'm reading lots of back and forth over the definition of what alt-right means. 

[NotDarkYet]

Go ahead and be indifferent about politics.

But politics isn't indifferent to you.

 

[plato85]

5 hours ago, DaVinci said:

I'm reading lots of back and forth over the definition of what alt-right means. 

Yeah it's as clear as mud. But how can anyone answer the question should Libertarians support the alt right unless they know what it means.

Part of the problem is a smear campaign. Various forces are trying to hijack the movement, or hijack the narrative.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

On 4/26/2017 at 9:42 AM, Tyler H said:

My argument is that anything less than the scientific method is not the scientific method at all. The scientific method is a set of steps, each necessary but not sufficient. If you skip a step or vary from the method in any way then you are no longer adhering to the scientific method.  You may be following some steps of the scientific method, but without all the constituent parts you do not have the scientific method. Saying people who manipulate data to advance their own agenda are adhering to the scientific method in any way is exactly the kind obfuscation I worry about permeating the philosophical arena. 

The same with the NAP. It's a principle which posits that all actions are allowed but for actions of physical aggression. Therefore if you act in a physically aggressive way, you are no longer adhering to the NAP. If you make the exception that there are gradations and there is no way to adhere to it in the ideal, then you leave a crack in the foundation for evil to gain social acceptance. 

I really think the language and specificity are important, especially with the constant co-opting of language by sophists. 

Then there has never been such a thing as a scientist, because every generation of scientists have had their own biases that had to die with them before the next generation was able to move on. 

The scientific method is like an asymptote: a perfect ideal that you reach for but can never fully attain. Same with the NAP: there is no such thing as a perfectly free society. The non-aggression principle is like one of the cardinal directions, it isn't a place in and of itself, it's a concept that guides actions.

Furthermore, talking about it is easier than applying it. Things get difficult where the rubber meets the road. I'm not saying you can get more NAP by violating it, but I am saying the direction to choose may not be so radiantly clear.