The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
The Libertarian Moments Has Passed--or Has It?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

COTW from 216:

The libertarian moment has passed.

The iron hand in the velvet glove is coming.

It’s a variation on the prediction often echoed here that Sulla is on the way.

On the other hand, a popular groundswell of anger–the manifestation of which will dwarf the size and scope of both the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street combined–is on the horizon. Its primary target will be the financial industry and the Federal Reserve enthroned in its center. Just as socialists say real socialism has never been tried, libertarians say real libertarianism has never been tried. Certainly not since 1913, anyway.

The strength of our political union is also going to be tested in ways it hasn’t been since the middle of the 19th century. As much bad blood as there is between red and blue America, the states remain bound together by the shared promise of federal bailouts for hopelessly underfunded pensions, Medicare, bond issues, and the like. As long as the Imperial Capital is able to conjure that funding out of its hat, the country will hold together. If that federal lifeline becomes a millstone, though, separation will start to look like a necessity. Forget the confederate secession, real libertarians want to know why Massachusetts didn’t pull the plug fifty years earlier.

 
Hide 91 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Sounds lovely. I’m not holding my breath.

  2. I’m looking forward to it. I don’t expect any support from 99% of our newest residents, but then again, for some of the commenters on here, I could say the same.

    Massachusetts seems to me to be the last state that would pull any plug. Nevada of the 1990s, before the huge surge of illegals, would have been my best best. Anyone remember Vin Suprynowicz?

    • Replies: @another anon

    Anyone remember Vin Suprynowicz?
     
    Yes, we remember Vin Suprynowicz celebrating and gloryfing terrorism.

    https://www.amazon.com/Ballad-Carl-Drega-Freedom-Movement/dp/0967025923

    https://web.archive.org/web/20040602201142/http://www.webleyweb.com:80/tle/libe57-19991015-01.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Drega

    https://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010492.html

    Deport his terrorist ass back to Ukraine.
    , @Almost Missouri

    "Massachusetts seems to me to be the last state that would pull any plug."
     
    I assume that AE was referring to the 1814 Hartford Convention where New England—or at least the more mercantile parts of it—threatened to secede over the ongoing War of 1812, which was wrecking their trade with Old World.

    Obviously, this movement never got as far as the Confeds did five decades later, partly because the Hartford grievances were mitigated by the imminent end of the War (which you'll read in the history books), but also because New Englanders are less given to reckless bravado than their Southron cousins (which you already knew, but will only see mentioned here and a few other places).
    , @128
    All those guns and you can not even keep Detroit from turning into Somalia or keep men away from the girl's bathroom?
    , @Magic Dirt Resident
    Latinos in the southwest favor secession more than just about anyone else. Greater Mexico is happening. This isn't disaggregated by race but the patterns are clear enough to see; only naive whites still believe in the idea of America.

    http://blogs.reuters.com/jamesrgaines/2014/09/19/one-in-four-americans-want-their-state-to-secede-from-the-u-s-but-why/
  3. @Achmed E. Newman
    I'm looking forward to it. I don't expect any support from 99% of our newest residents, but then again, for some of the commenters on here, I could say the same.

    Massachusetts seems to me to be the last state that would pull any plug. Nevada of the 1990s, before the huge surge of illegals, would have been my best best. Anyone remember Vin Suprynowicz?

    Anyone remember Vin Suprynowicz?

    Yes, we remember Vin Suprynowicz celebrating and gloryfing terrorism.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20040602201142/http://www.webleyweb.com:80/tle/libe57-19991015-01.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Drega

    https://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010492.html

    Deport his terrorist ass back to Ukraine.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Why don't you read the book, instead of spouting off slander? Vin Suprynowicz gave me that book for free. I read it. Both he can Carl Drega are American patriots. Mr. Suprynowicz wrote another book called Send in the Waco Killers. You ought to read that one. I recommend it highly.

    There's a short note on Peak Stupidity - More about Waco, TX.
  4. Where’s the political constituency for it? People in favor of the current status quo, or who benefit from it, are likely to gravitate to defending the neoliberal order in some way or another: just look at the social justice movement. They don’t need to shift to a potentially discrediting ideology in the eyes of their rank and file. And people who are against it are likely not to favor a strengthening of market forces, both on the Left and increasingly on the Right, because the inevitable beneficiaries of that will be those currently in charge, regardless of the intentions of libertarians. I’ve said it before: we essentially have institutionalized socialism for politically connected large corporations, at the expense of small ones. The relationship between the two is intimate to the point where Congress feels the need to negotiate with Amazon to get Jeff Bezos to appear rather than just ordering him. They will win from further deregulation in practice.

    This is far from some fringe “alt-right” trend: just look at where guys like Hawley or Carlson are going. That’s the future, not libertarianism.

    >It’s a variation on the prediction often echoed here that Sulla is on the way.

    I think we’re at the period right before the Gracchi: so not quite there yet, but going down that road. Also, the political contours of the pseudo-meritocratic American elite are quite different from the aristocratic “boni” of the late Roman Republic, so I’d assume the politics of this neo-Sulla would be different.

    If there is a future Marius and a future Sulla hanging out there, I wonder what they are doing right now? Sulla was a declassed loser with a dissolute lifestyle until he was in his early 30s, and though Marius had a reasonably successful military career early in life, he didn’t really catch fire until his late 30s.

    • Replies: @Daniel H
    If there is a future Marius and a future Sulla hanging out there,

    Who would make up an American Optimates faction?
    , @Audacious Epigone
    To the extent that the libertarian moment could be coming, it's not in the sense of some recognized political or cultural entity, nothing like that. I think it will be expressed primarily in the two things mentioned in the post--the death or reformation of the Fed and the political dissolution of the US.
  5. @nebulafox
    Where's the political constituency for it? People in favor of the current status quo, or who benefit from it, are likely to gravitate to defending the neoliberal order in some way or another: just look at the social justice movement. They don't need to shift to a potentially discrediting ideology in the eyes of their rank and file. And people who are against it are likely not to favor a strengthening of market forces, both on the Left and increasingly on the Right, because the inevitable beneficiaries of that will be those currently in charge, regardless of the intentions of libertarians. I've said it before: we essentially have institutionalized socialism for politically connected large corporations, at the expense of small ones. The relationship between the two is intimate to the point where Congress feels the need to negotiate with Amazon to get Jeff Bezos to appear rather than just ordering him. They will win from further deregulation in practice.

    This is far from some fringe "alt-right" trend: just look at where guys like Hawley or Carlson are going. That's the future, not libertarianism.

    >It’s a variation on the prediction often echoed here that Sulla is on the way.

    I think we're at the period right before the Gracchi: so not quite there yet, but going down that road. Also, the political contours of the pseudo-meritocratic American elite are quite different from the aristocratic "boni" of the late Roman Republic, so I'd assume the politics of this neo-Sulla would be different.

    If there is a future Marius and a future Sulla hanging out there, I wonder what they are doing right now? Sulla was a declassed loser with a dissolute lifestyle until he was in his early 30s, and though Marius had a reasonably successful military career early in life, he didn't really catch fire until his late 30s.

    If there is a future Marius and a future Sulla hanging out there,

    Who would make up an American Optimates faction?

    • Replies: @another anon

    If there is a future Marius and a future Sulla hanging out there,
    Who would make up an American Optimates faction?
     
    There were numerous empires in history.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires

    Assuming that United States is an empire, why should US history repeat the history of Roman empire, and not, for example, Ottoman, Mughal or Zulu empire?

    https://www.amazon.com/Why-America-Not-New-Rome/dp/0262195933

    This debate reminds me the Soviet Union in the twenties. Everyone thought that Russian revolution would exactly repeat the fate of French revolution, and everyone looked for new Napoleon.
    Everyone missed the boring clerk holding the boring office of Party secretary.

    http://svobodnenoviny.eu/wp-content/uploads/stalin-1.jpg
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The Cloud People. We are the Popularis.
  6. @Daniel H
    If there is a future Marius and a future Sulla hanging out there,

    Who would make up an American Optimates faction?

    If there is a future Marius and a future Sulla hanging out there,
    Who would make up an American Optimates faction?

    There were numerous empires in history.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires

    Assuming that United States is an empire, why should US history repeat the history of Roman empire, and not, for example, Ottoman, Mughal or Zulu empire?

    This debate reminds me the Soviet Union in the twenties. Everyone thought that Russian revolution would exactly repeat the fate of French revolution, and everyone looked for new Napoleon.
    Everyone missed the boring clerk holding the boring office of Party secretary.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    My own inclination is that our elites have an Ottoman style millet system in mind, perhaps mixed with modern Chinese style methods of social control, but they are severely underestimating the pushback they are going to encounter in the future-and also underestimating how much their legitimacy rests on inertia.

    One thing I picked up in Kotkin's biography of Stalin was that he was not just far smarter than people gave him credit for: he was also a naturally skilled politician with a good understanding of human motivation and the likely actions of his rivals. This was something that his rivals distinctly lacked, particularly Trotsky.

    But Stalin was also helped by the fact that he, much more than Trotsky, represented and resonated with the average "novo homus" Party member by 1923. He was their man who embodied their aspirations. All the bureaucratic authority and terror in the world doesn't get you anywhere if millions of people under you don't believe in you. And millions did. To think that Stalin was an unpopular dictator not willed by the masses is to make a mistake.

    , @Hypnotoad666

    Everyone missed the boring clerk holding the boring office of Party secretary.
     
    Never underestimate the power of the HR Department.
  7. @another anon

    If there is a future Marius and a future Sulla hanging out there,
    Who would make up an American Optimates faction?
     
    There were numerous empires in history.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires

    Assuming that United States is an empire, why should US history repeat the history of Roman empire, and not, for example, Ottoman, Mughal or Zulu empire?

    https://www.amazon.com/Why-America-Not-New-Rome/dp/0262195933

    This debate reminds me the Soviet Union in the twenties. Everyone thought that Russian revolution would exactly repeat the fate of French revolution, and everyone looked for new Napoleon.
    Everyone missed the boring clerk holding the boring office of Party secretary.

    http://svobodnenoviny.eu/wp-content/uploads/stalin-1.jpg

    My own inclination is that our elites have an Ottoman style millet system in mind, perhaps mixed with modern Chinese style methods of social control, but they are severely underestimating the pushback they are going to encounter in the future-and also underestimating how much their legitimacy rests on inertia.

    One thing I picked up in Kotkin’s biography of Stalin was that he was not just far smarter than people gave him credit for: he was also a naturally skilled politician with a good understanding of human motivation and the likely actions of his rivals. This was something that his rivals distinctly lacked, particularly Trotsky.

    But Stalin was also helped by the fact that he, much more than Trotsky, represented and resonated with the average “novo homus” Party member by 1923. He was their man who embodied their aspirations. All the bureaucratic authority and terror in the world doesn’t get you anywhere if millions of people under you don’t believe in you. And millions did. To think that Stalin was an unpopular dictator not willed by the masses is to make a mistake.

    • Replies: @advancedatheist

    One thing I picked up in Kotkin’s biography of Stalin was that he was not just far smarter than people gave him credit for
     
    By all accounts Stalin read voraciously. The early communist movement attracted cultivated men, starting with Marx and Engels themselves, who found intellectual and spiritual fuel in the great works of Western civilization. Ironically the modern heirs of the communists in academia have repudiated the need to learn from this wealth of culture, ostensibly because white men created it, though I suspect the real reason comes from the adulteration of our universities with the world's diversitarians. Today's leftist professors realize that their students' coarse and animalistic minds can't process the unfamiliar words and difficult syntax that the West's great minds used to express their thoughts about the universe and the human condition, so these works can no longer play a role in college education.
  8. That was an interesting reference to the War of 1812, which was very unpopular in New England and led to talk of secession (the United States was only about 30 years old at that time). The Hartford Convention of 1814-1815 did not endorse secession, although it had some separatist aspects. Fortunately for the United States, Great Britain was more concerned about Napoleon Bonaparte than James Madison and American diplomats negotiated an end to the war on favorable terms, considering the general lack of military success on the part of the U.S. (Andrew Jackson’s decisive success at the Battle of New Orleans occurred after the signing of the Treaty of Ghent.)

    I think eventually the U.S. will break up, peaceably or otherwise, but21st it’s probably going to begin mid-21st Century. There are the beginnings of it in the form of sanctuary cities, but the economics of different countries and the allocation of nuclear weapons will be very difficult to resolve.

  9. @Achmed E. Newman
    I'm looking forward to it. I don't expect any support from 99% of our newest residents, but then again, for some of the commenters on here, I could say the same.

    Massachusetts seems to me to be the last state that would pull any plug. Nevada of the 1990s, before the huge surge of illegals, would have been my best best. Anyone remember Vin Suprynowicz?

    “Massachusetts seems to me to be the last state that would pull any plug.”

    I assume that AE was referring to the 1814 Hartford Convention where New England—or at least the more mercantile parts of it—threatened to secede over the ongoing War of 1812, which was wrecking their trade with Old World.

    Obviously, this movement never got as far as the Confeds did five decades later, partly because the Hartford grievances were mitigated by the imminent end of the War (which you’ll read in the history books), but also because New Englanders are less given to reckless bravado than their Southron cousins (which you already knew, but will only see mentioned here and a few other places).

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  10. The libertarian moment has passed.

    But every critic of libertarianism has his own personal-liberty ax to grind. Particularly egregious are “rights” to abortion and third-party reproduction, neither of which can be defended by any honest libertarian, as they are crimes with victims, not rights.

    Or a purported right to immigration, which is only conceivable given self-sufficiency of the immigrant, rarely the case these days.

    • Agree: Liberty Mike
    • Replies: @Muggles
    >>But every critic of libertarianism has his own personal-liberty ax to grind. Particularly egregious are “rights” to abortion and third-party reproduction, neither of which can be defended by any honest libertarian, as they are crimes with victims, not rights.<<

    As do you, grinding your own ax. Real libertarians seldom agree 100% with other libertarians on everything. For one thing, they think for themselves. Not every human action can be put through some "libertarian thought grinder" and come out identically.

    Some hard core libertarian intellectuals, most, support legal abortion. Though most don't champion people doing it. Others disagree. I'm not sure what third-party reproduction actually is supposed to be, so hard to judge. If you mean surrogacy, then most would I believe support that.

    This capacity for honest disagreement over issues is a strong point of the libertarian tendency. It isn't a dogma or religion that can be spelled out in detail and nailed to the cathedral door. Also, and very important, many libertarian policy solutions need fairly widespread acceptance before they will work as intended. Much of that is cultural and sociological. Some are attracted to libertarian ideas because they think it is a "no rules" kind of society notion. In truth, it requires a high degree of voluntary cooperation and social norming. It takes education and voluntary agreement.

    Which is why it is not a Utopian vision as some critics claim, Straw Man style. It can't be imposed from the top. Some people will prefer more authoritarianism than others. De-centralism is thus a necessary precondition to "more libertarianism" in society. With the Pandemic, we learn very clearly that there is a marked difference in Blue vs. Red, urban vs. rural, sheep vs. goats.

    The Comrades in the national media barking forums were all demanding "national" rules, but had no actual logical rationale for that. Their instincts are to centralize and control. Federalize. Statewide edicts at the very least. In more libertarian areas, local authorities and even law enforcement resists that. I think the Pandemic is a "learning opportunity" for all who think for themselves. There is LA and NYC and Texas and Florida. Kansas and New Jersey. Thank goodness.
  11. Our elites don’t feel threatened by libertarian attacks on central banking, the income tax and fiat currency. Otherwise they would treat libertarians the way they abuse white nationalists.

    Otherwise, how do libertarian beliefs differ from our elites’ ideology regarding open borders, indiscriminate immigration, sexual freedom and letting billionaires do pretty much whatever they want?

    • Replies: @paranoid goy
    Brother, the majority of questions, guesses, 'answers' and accusations on this topic, here, today, so far, is this:
    Every single thing mentioned here, is straight from the Protocols. I cannot believe the Protocols is not hanging out of every Unz Review fan's pocket. Here, see my tattered and well-studied copy? It saves so much time arguing over the different viewpoints Zion created for us to argue over, so we don't start thinking for ourselves. Every single one of the talking points here, are pure Protocol, and every commenter tris to upstage the rest by being more elaborate in his following of the proferred.... er... protocol?
    "Liberty: n. Acting outside the bounds of decency", a gift from Zion!
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Reality will dictate events and the outcome will be something many libertarians putatively hope for now.
  12. @nebulafox
    My own inclination is that our elites have an Ottoman style millet system in mind, perhaps mixed with modern Chinese style methods of social control, but they are severely underestimating the pushback they are going to encounter in the future-and also underestimating how much their legitimacy rests on inertia.

    One thing I picked up in Kotkin's biography of Stalin was that he was not just far smarter than people gave him credit for: he was also a naturally skilled politician with a good understanding of human motivation and the likely actions of his rivals. This was something that his rivals distinctly lacked, particularly Trotsky.

    But Stalin was also helped by the fact that he, much more than Trotsky, represented and resonated with the average "novo homus" Party member by 1923. He was their man who embodied their aspirations. All the bureaucratic authority and terror in the world doesn't get you anywhere if millions of people under you don't believe in you. And millions did. To think that Stalin was an unpopular dictator not willed by the masses is to make a mistake.

    One thing I picked up in Kotkin’s biography of Stalin was that he was not just far smarter than people gave him credit for

    By all accounts Stalin read voraciously. The early communist movement attracted cultivated men, starting with Marx and Engels themselves, who found intellectual and spiritual fuel in the great works of Western civilization. Ironically the modern heirs of the communists in academia have repudiated the need to learn from this wealth of culture, ostensibly because white men created it, though I suspect the real reason comes from the adulteration of our universities with the world’s diversitarians. Today’s leftist professors realize that their students’ coarse and animalistic minds can’t process the unfamiliar words and difficult syntax that the West’s great minds used to express their thoughts about the universe and the human condition, so these works can no longer play a role in college education.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Oh, absolutely. For all the myriad-and sometimes downright horrific-flaws of the Old Left, they'd be absolutely appalled at the notion of attempting to transform Western society into something non-Western. They themselves were very much a product of Western culture, after all: German philosophy, French sociopolitical ideas, British economic theory, and classical antiquity. The idea of ignoring classical or European history and culture as the product of old stale pale men would have been anathema.

    So, if Marxism was Hegel for people who couldn't handle Hegel and Leninism was Marxism for people who couldn't handle Marx, what does that make whatever you call the ideology of the modern Left? I'm no leftist, but I'd imagine for anybody who values the lot of the average American worker and wants to increase their bargaining power, the ideology of the modern Democratic Party must be strange: a weird mix of social justice mishmash and kowtowing to neoliberal orthodoxy, with increasing monopolist, neo-feudal overtones.

    Then again, the GOP has long been devoid of any concern for conserving much of anything except for tax cuts on plutocrats and our wars, so who am I to talk...

  13. AE: “the prediction often echoed here that Sulla is on the way.”

    Sulla is not on the way. You know who is? In the near term, An Lu-Shan. And in the long term, if we are lucky, a BadWhite version of Kemal Ataturk.

    Rome is not the model for America, the Late T’ang-Catastrophic An Lu-Shan Civil War-Sung Dynasty rump empire is the real model. The only real Americans are BadWhites, whose country, America, been successfully invaded and conquered by a Jewish Fifth Column-led alliance of foreign barbarians: Negroes, Latinos, Muslims, Pajeets, Asians, Neo-Africans and Mystery Meat. Just like the Turks and proto-Manchus/Mongols divvying up the T’ang.

    The only hope for an-almost-too-late awakened BadWhite America at this point is overt consciousness followed by partition and consolidation of a White American rump state in North America, perhaps two or three in alliance, centered around Great Lakes/St. Lawrence valley, Greater PNW (including Idaho, North California, parts of Montana Wyoming etc) and maybe something in the South reaching from say Arkansas to West Virginia and East Tennessee. The rest of the country you can more or less kiss goodbye.

    In this scenario, the best hope for White survival is a strictly all-BadWhite state with nuclear weapons, an impenetrable mile-high electric fence, and the most ruthless and sophisticated Jew-detector technologies ever devised.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    I think that you are 100% correct. We are in a low-level civil war right now that will only get worse. Not like the War Between the States, but The Troubles in Northern Ireland - bombings, sabotage, kidnappings, assassinations, etc. 2032 seems to be Year Zero when the US gets a new form of government (according to Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics) or a possible breakup or both.

    Normies imagine that a Redstan America would be multi-racial, multi-religious, etc., but united by a common set of values and love for the Constitution. I don't think so. It'll be more like the US of the 1950s - overwhelmingly White and culturally Christian. In various ways, using both the law and financial subsidies, an attempt will be made to raise the moral tone of society and strengthen the family.

    Jews are caught between a rock and a hard place because while a Jew may or may not consider herself White, and the lefties don't, non-Whites regard them as White. Uber Whites if anything. On the other hand, a growing number of White Gentiles realize that Jews collectively constitute an aggressively hostile elite that has been in the forefront of political radicalism and cultural subversion dating back to the 19th Century. They will be unpopular in both Redstan and Bluestan. Good Whites will be in a bind, as well, because despite the fact that they are "liberal," they are still White and are hated by non-Whites for that crime.

    Bluestan, which will be populated by every race, ethnicity, religion, sex and sexual orientation on the planet will further break up as the various groups jockey for power. After all, what unites the Coalition of the Ascendant is hatred of Whites and the desire for free stuff and legal privileges. Crush Whitey and they'll turn on each other.

    , @Liberty Mike
    The "most ruthless and sophisticated jew-detector technologies ever devised."

    Who needs that when we have Wally?
  14. @advancedatheist

    One thing I picked up in Kotkin’s biography of Stalin was that he was not just far smarter than people gave him credit for
     
    By all accounts Stalin read voraciously. The early communist movement attracted cultivated men, starting with Marx and Engels themselves, who found intellectual and spiritual fuel in the great works of Western civilization. Ironically the modern heirs of the communists in academia have repudiated the need to learn from this wealth of culture, ostensibly because white men created it, though I suspect the real reason comes from the adulteration of our universities with the world's diversitarians. Today's leftist professors realize that their students' coarse and animalistic minds can't process the unfamiliar words and difficult syntax that the West's great minds used to express their thoughts about the universe and the human condition, so these works can no longer play a role in college education.

    Oh, absolutely. For all the myriad-and sometimes downright horrific-flaws of the Old Left, they’d be absolutely appalled at the notion of attempting to transform Western society into something non-Western. They themselves were very much a product of Western culture, after all: German philosophy, French sociopolitical ideas, British economic theory, and classical antiquity. The idea of ignoring classical or European history and culture as the product of old stale pale men would have been anathema.

    So, if Marxism was Hegel for people who couldn’t handle Hegel and Leninism was Marxism for people who couldn’t handle Marx, what does that make whatever you call the ideology of the modern Left? I’m no leftist, but I’d imagine for anybody who values the lot of the average American worker and wants to increase their bargaining power, the ideology of the modern Democratic Party must be strange: a weird mix of social justice mishmash and kowtowing to neoliberal orthodoxy, with increasing monopolist, neo-feudal overtones.

    Then again, the GOP has long been devoid of any concern for conserving much of anything except for tax cuts on plutocrats and our wars, so who am I to talk…

    • Agree: Dutch Boy
    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    Under Lenin, the Soviet Union promoted "free love" - easy divorce, legal abortion and decriminalized homosexuality. There even was serious discussion about outlawing marriage. This changed under Stalin and the official culture of the Soviet Union became quite puritanical. Even in the 1980s, they were tough on gays, lesbians and junkies. In the West, as the left became less economically radical (no one advocates the nationalization of industries other than the medical) it became more socially radical - easy abortion, gay marriage, promiscuity and legal porn. The old lefties would have declared this to be "bourgeois decadence."
  15. It’s a variation on the prediction often echoed here that Sulla is on the way.

    Sulla could win wars. The closest thing we might have had to Sulla in terms of bridging a political gap was Trump, and Trump spends most of his time curled up in a fetal position under his desk.

    No, AE, we’re much farther along than Sulla, and are now at the precipice of our own Third Century Crisis.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  16. The plain fact is fact that the US is now almost a Chinese style totalitarian country, [and believe me, our partial lagging behind in measuring up to the Chinese “total, total”standard is being rectified, RIGHT NOW, as any true red-piller is acutely aware].

    So What’s To Be Done?

    In my opinion , one needs to first identify the real enemy, and next, one needs to understand the true, fundamental nature of that enemy.

    The enemy [of all humanity] is government- _all_ governments, everywhere. Why?

    Because of their true, fundamental, unchangeable nature.

    To that end, I’ve said before and I’ll say it again:

    “Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [central bank monopolies], all governments are essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be “reformed”or “improved”,simply because of their innate criminal nature.” onebornfree

    “Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure” Robert LeFevere

    The US will remain totalitarian, and become even more so as long as a majority of its inhabitants remain in denial of :

    1] the true, fundamental, unchangeable, wholly criminal nature of their governments [local, state, federal].

    2] the simple fact that government solutions never work anyway [except to enrich the government and its many sycophants]. There simply are NO government solutions to any perceived social problem- government can only create _more_ problems, it never solves existing problems [only makes them even worse].

    See: Harry Browne’s short, great: “Why Government Doesn’t Work”: https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Why_Government_Doesn%27t_Work

    Regards, onebornfree

    • Agree: Kratoklastes
  17. @another anon

    Anyone remember Vin Suprynowicz?
     
    Yes, we remember Vin Suprynowicz celebrating and gloryfing terrorism.

    https://www.amazon.com/Ballad-Carl-Drega-Freedom-Movement/dp/0967025923

    https://web.archive.org/web/20040602201142/http://www.webleyweb.com:80/tle/libe57-19991015-01.html

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Drega

    https://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/010492.html

    Deport his terrorist ass back to Ukraine.

    Why don’t you read the book, instead of spouting off slander? Vin Suprynowicz gave me that book for free. I read it. Both he can Carl Drega are American patriots. Mr. Suprynowicz wrote another book called Send in the Waco Killers. You ought to read that one. I recommend it highly.

    There’s a short note on Peak Stupidity More about Waco, TX.

  18. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    AE: "the prediction often echoed here that Sulla is on the way."

    Sulla is not on the way. You know who is? In the near term, An Lu-Shan. And in the long term, if we are lucky, a BadWhite version of Kemal Ataturk.

    Rome is not the model for America, the Late T'ang-Catastrophic An Lu-Shan Civil War-Sung Dynasty rump empire is the real model. The only real Americans are BadWhites, whose country, America, been successfully invaded and conquered by a Jewish Fifth Column-led alliance of foreign barbarians: Negroes, Latinos, Muslims, Pajeets, Asians, Neo-Africans and Mystery Meat. Just like the Turks and proto-Manchus/Mongols divvying up the T'ang.

    The only hope for an-almost-too-late awakened BadWhite America at this point is overt consciousness followed by partition and consolidation of a White American rump state in North America, perhaps two or three in alliance, centered around Great Lakes/St. Lawrence valley, Greater PNW (including Idaho, North California, parts of Montana Wyoming etc) and maybe something in the South reaching from say Arkansas to West Virginia and East Tennessee. The rest of the country you can more or less kiss goodbye.

    In this scenario, the best hope for White survival is a strictly all-BadWhite state with nuclear weapons, an impenetrable mile-high electric fence, and the most ruthless and sophisticated Jew-detector technologies ever devised.

    I think that you are 100% correct. We are in a low-level civil war right now that will only get worse. Not like the War Between the States, but The Troubles in Northern Ireland – bombings, sabotage, kidnappings, assassinations, etc. 2032 seems to be Year Zero when the US gets a new form of government (according to Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics) or a possible breakup or both.

    Normies imagine that a Redstan America would be multi-racial, multi-religious, etc., but united by a common set of values and love for the Constitution. I don’t think so. It’ll be more like the US of the 1950s – overwhelmingly White and culturally Christian. In various ways, using both the law and financial subsidies, an attempt will be made to raise the moral tone of society and strengthen the family.

    Jews are caught between a rock and a hard place because while a Jew may or may not consider herself White, and the lefties don’t, non-Whites regard them as White. Uber Whites if anything. On the other hand, a growing number of White Gentiles realize that Jews collectively constitute an aggressively hostile elite that has been in the forefront of political radicalism and cultural subversion dating back to the 19th Century. They will be unpopular in both Redstan and Bluestan. Good Whites will be in a bind, as well, because despite the fact that they are “liberal,” they are still White and are hated by non-Whites for that crime.

    Bluestan, which will be populated by every race, ethnicity, religion, sex and sexual orientation on the planet will further break up as the various groups jockey for power. After all, what unites the Coalition of the Ascendant is hatred of Whites and the desire for free stuff and legal privileges. Crush Whitey and they’ll turn on each other.

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Alexander Turok
    Why haven't Redstan America's governments cut off the subsidies to higher ed in their states?

    Answer: they don't share the values of the Redstan masses.

    Why would it be any different if Redstan was a separate country?
    , @Corvinus
    "We are in a low-level civil war right now that will only get worse."

    Some people feel that way, others not so much.

    "2032 seems to be Year Zero when the US gets a new form of government (according to Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics) or a possible breakup or both."

    Alt Right leader Vox Day says 2033.

    "Normies imagine that a Redstan America would be multi-racial, multi-religious, etc., but united by a common set of values and love for the Constitution. I don’t think so."

    Normies tend to be right on the mark. They are the future. You're going to have to propagandize the hell out of them that our future is "overwhelmingly White and culturally Christian."

    "On the other hand, a growing number of White Gentiles realize that Jews collectively constitute an aggressively hostile elite that has been in the forefront of political radicalism and cultural subversion dating back to the 19th Century."

    It's not as many white people as you think who share this position that Jews are "hostile" and who should be permanently removed from the United States.

    "Crush Whitey and they’ll turn on each other."

    I'll wait for the movie to come out. The bottom line is that political dissolution is an American pipe dream.
  19. @nebulafox
    Oh, absolutely. For all the myriad-and sometimes downright horrific-flaws of the Old Left, they'd be absolutely appalled at the notion of attempting to transform Western society into something non-Western. They themselves were very much a product of Western culture, after all: German philosophy, French sociopolitical ideas, British economic theory, and classical antiquity. The idea of ignoring classical or European history and culture as the product of old stale pale men would have been anathema.

    So, if Marxism was Hegel for people who couldn't handle Hegel and Leninism was Marxism for people who couldn't handle Marx, what does that make whatever you call the ideology of the modern Left? I'm no leftist, but I'd imagine for anybody who values the lot of the average American worker and wants to increase their bargaining power, the ideology of the modern Democratic Party must be strange: a weird mix of social justice mishmash and kowtowing to neoliberal orthodoxy, with increasing monopolist, neo-feudal overtones.

    Then again, the GOP has long been devoid of any concern for conserving much of anything except for tax cuts on plutocrats and our wars, so who am I to talk...

    Under Lenin, the Soviet Union promoted “free love” – easy divorce, legal abortion and decriminalized homosexuality. There even was serious discussion about outlawing marriage. This changed under Stalin and the official culture of the Soviet Union became quite puritanical. Even in the 1980s, they were tough on gays, lesbians and junkies. In the West, as the left became less economically radical (no one advocates the nationalization of industries other than the medical) it became more socially radical – easy abortion, gay marriage, promiscuity and legal porn. The old lefties would have declared this to be “bourgeois decadence.”

    • Agree: Hugo Silva, Znzn
    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    That stuff sounds great when you are trying to destabilize a society somebody else controls but not so great when you are in charge of that society and don't want it destabilized.
    , @nebulafox
    Many security services in Communist countries-particularly those in Warsaw Pact or in places like Cuba, places immediately proximate to the US/West Europe-thought a lot of the feminism and alternate sexuality stuff was not just a sign of late bourgeois collapse, but a weapon meant to subvert their naturally pure societies. Look up Markus Wolf of Stasi fame: his beliefs about Westerners were pretty normative stuff.
  20. Libertarianism cannot work on a large scale because our population has too many unintelligent and incapable people. It’s possible that some future smallish and largely white state will pull it off, but a large and growing share of the US population is just not equipped to pull it off and doesn’t want to either.

    • Replies: @jtgw
    Libertarianism can't work without political decentralization.
  21. @Achmed E. Newman
    I'm looking forward to it. I don't expect any support from 99% of our newest residents, but then again, for some of the commenters on here, I could say the same.

    Massachusetts seems to me to be the last state that would pull any plug. Nevada of the 1990s, before the huge surge of illegals, would have been my best best. Anyone remember Vin Suprynowicz?

    All those guns and you can not even keep Detroit from turning into Somalia or keep men away from the girl’s bathroom?

    • Agree: Nodwink
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I don't live in Detroit, and we go to normal bathrooms where I live. Any further questions?
  22. I think rather than Sulla being on the way the Roman emperor Maximinus I is on the way. After he came to power, he declared that all privately owned wealth belonged to the emperor. He then increased taxes and used the money to increase the pay of the army and government employees. Taxes increased so much that people started hiding their wealth. Commerce in the Roman empire then began a rapid decline and never recovered.

  23. Good luck with that, events of the last few years lead me to understand that BadWhites are hopeless suckers, they oppose the policies of the Liberal Regime at home but as soon there is a Republican in the White House they become enthusiastic supporters when he bombs wogs to impose them liberal values. Unless the BadWhites understand that the Republicans are just the B Team of the Liberal Regime, tasked with consolidate liberal policies of the last generation and mobilize support of recalcitrant conservatives to the existing regime, their demise is assured and there is nothing anyone can do about that.

  24. Should become increasingly clear to pro-lockdown states that they will suffer from anti-lockdown states unless they fully secede or at least grab enough local sovereignty to impose the necessary border controls. States like Rhode Island banning New Yorkers are the first step.

  25. @Arclight
    Libertarianism cannot work on a large scale because our population has too many unintelligent and incapable people. It's possible that some future smallish and largely white state will pull it off, but a large and growing share of the US population is just not equipped to pull it off and doesn't want to either.

    Libertarianism can’t work without political decentralization.

  26. A123 says:

    Given the aggressiveness and military capabilities of other nations the question is, “Could a Libertarian nation defend itself?”

    In the era of sailing ships and rifles, small arms proficient civilians could link up with a small core of professional soldiers to field an effective combat force.

    In the era of tanks and planes, it is hard to see how Libertarianism can fund or field central government units for mechanized warfare.

    If you want peace, prepare for war. — “Epitoma Rei Militaris,” by the Roman general Vegetius

    PEACE 😷

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    Irregulars would do fine.

    The much-vaunted US Death Machine is 0 for 4 against rag-tag bunches of peasants with 1950s weaponry (Vietnam; Somalia; Iraq; Afghanistan). I wouldn't expect much in a home derby against irregulars: there's no point in controlling the skies if you don't control the night.

    The days of standard large-scale infantry engagements have passed: everyone now knows that to beat a superior force you draw them into your turf and bleed them white - avoiding set-piece engagements.

    That's also a gift that keeps on giving after the dust settles: quite apart from high levels of wounded invaders, there's the long tail of PTSD, alcoholism, drug abuse, family breakdown and suicide.

    Nothing drives a young adventurer out of his mind faster than seeing other young adventurers getting their legs blown off without setting sight on the enemy. It's why infantry always hates the other side's snipers.

    Another War of Secession in the US would be 4G-on-steroids, if only because of the near-parity of small arms. The ease with which irregulars could infiltrate logistics chains and the 'home front' wouldn't help either.

    And in the end the US would lose, because they would be trying to re-fight the Ardennes or Tet or Fallujah or Okinawa. Can't do that when you can't tell if MAMs in your home town are 'Us' or 'Them'.

    This was the South's great strategic failure: they took the 'honourable' approach and fought the War of Northern Aggression like the British fought the War of Independence (i.e., organised set-piece warfare) instead of 'fighting dirty' (as an insurgency - like the Maori in New Zealand at about the same time, and the Afghans in Afghanistan against the British in the 1830s).

    , @Muggles
    >>In the era of tanks and planes, it is hard to see how Libertarianism can fund or field central government units for mechanized warfare.<<

    There is a lot of libertarian science fiction written about this subject. One book, which came out int he 1960s, envisions a conquered USA by the USSR where a tiny band of rebels gets control of a nuclear missile complex. Game over.

    North Korea illustrates what a small nation can do with a very minimal WMD deterrent capability.

    Which is why the major powers are hell bent on keeping those out of small nations or places with feudal style leaders. Or anywhere, really, other than "them that gots" already.

    Modern libertarian style nations need to avoid becoming "pirate havens" as some libertarians envision. Harboring widely reviled and hated criminal behavior is one thing to avoid for libertarians of all stripes. The Silk Road fiasco proved that even virtual communities need to keep from making themselves targets. Pirate havens are historically unpopular and unsuccessful in the long run.
  27. @The Germ Theory of Disease
    AE: "the prediction often echoed here that Sulla is on the way."

    Sulla is not on the way. You know who is? In the near term, An Lu-Shan. And in the long term, if we are lucky, a BadWhite version of Kemal Ataturk.

    Rome is not the model for America, the Late T'ang-Catastrophic An Lu-Shan Civil War-Sung Dynasty rump empire is the real model. The only real Americans are BadWhites, whose country, America, been successfully invaded and conquered by a Jewish Fifth Column-led alliance of foreign barbarians: Negroes, Latinos, Muslims, Pajeets, Asians, Neo-Africans and Mystery Meat. Just like the Turks and proto-Manchus/Mongols divvying up the T'ang.

    The only hope for an-almost-too-late awakened BadWhite America at this point is overt consciousness followed by partition and consolidation of a White American rump state in North America, perhaps two or three in alliance, centered around Great Lakes/St. Lawrence valley, Greater PNW (including Idaho, North California, parts of Montana Wyoming etc) and maybe something in the South reaching from say Arkansas to West Virginia and East Tennessee. The rest of the country you can more or less kiss goodbye.

    In this scenario, the best hope for White survival is a strictly all-BadWhite state with nuclear weapons, an impenetrable mile-high electric fence, and the most ruthless and sophisticated Jew-detector technologies ever devised.

    The “most ruthless and sophisticated jew-detector technologies ever devised.”

    Who needs that when we have Wally?

    • LOL: iffen
  28. @Achmed E. Newman
    I'm looking forward to it. I don't expect any support from 99% of our newest residents, but then again, for some of the commenters on here, I could say the same.

    Massachusetts seems to me to be the last state that would pull any plug. Nevada of the 1990s, before the huge surge of illegals, would have been my best best. Anyone remember Vin Suprynowicz?

    Latinos in the southwest favor secession more than just about anyone else. Greater Mexico is happening. This isn’t disaggregated by race but the patterns are clear enough to see; only naive whites still believe in the idea of America.

    http://blogs.reuters.com/jamesrgaines/2014/09/19/one-in-four-americans-want-their-state-to-secede-from-the-u-s-but-why/

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    I believe it, MDR, but, as I'm sure you know, any such independent states created will be no Libertarian societies of any sort. Things will resort to the standard Latin-American 3rd-world in short order.
  29. West Texas Intermediate oil is over $30 / bbl today. Oil is up 80% in a month. That negative price in the futures? Totally erased.

    https://markets.businessinsider.com/commodities/oil-price?type=wti&op=1

    The sky did not fall because some traders got caught in a squeeze.
    Some people should make a note of that fact.

    • Agree: Muggles
  30. @Magic Dirt Resident
    Latinos in the southwest favor secession more than just about anyone else. Greater Mexico is happening. This isn't disaggregated by race but the patterns are clear enough to see; only naive whites still believe in the idea of America.

    http://blogs.reuters.com/jamesrgaines/2014/09/19/one-in-four-americans-want-their-state-to-secede-from-the-u-s-but-why/

    I believe it, MDR, but, as I’m sure you know, any such independent states created will be no Libertarian societies of any sort. Things will resort to the standard Latin-American 3rd-world in short order.

  31. Honestly, I find Razib’s Sulla theory completely flabbergasting.

    I take it that Sulla is Razib’s favorite character out of Roman history, and that he perceives him as a reformer, but that’s about as far as I get with understanding it, before all the bizarre aspects of the analogy gang up on me, and I start perceiving it as some really idiosyncratic joke.

    But what does it have to do with the modern world or with this pervasive anti-racism ideology? With this mass invasion? With this trans-mania? With NGOs? With the media and universities? With transnational corporations? If nothing, then how can it possibly apply?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Sulla a familiar right wing strongman archetype without the emotional investment that similar types closer to us in time carry with them.
  32. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    Under Lenin, the Soviet Union promoted "free love" - easy divorce, legal abortion and decriminalized homosexuality. There even was serious discussion about outlawing marriage. This changed under Stalin and the official culture of the Soviet Union became quite puritanical. Even in the 1980s, they were tough on gays, lesbians and junkies. In the West, as the left became less economically radical (no one advocates the nationalization of industries other than the medical) it became more socially radical - easy abortion, gay marriage, promiscuity and legal porn. The old lefties would have declared this to be "bourgeois decadence."

    That stuff sounds great when you are trying to destabilize a society somebody else controls but not so great when you are in charge of that society and don’t want it destabilized.

    • Replies: @res

    That stuff sounds great when you are trying to destabilize a society somebody else controls but not so great when you are in charge of that society and don’t want it destabilized.
     
    Well said. And that is when you separate the true believers from the power seekers flying a flag of convenience.
  33. res says:
    @Dutch Boy
    That stuff sounds great when you are trying to destabilize a society somebody else controls but not so great when you are in charge of that society and don't want it destabilized.

    That stuff sounds great when you are trying to destabilize a society somebody else controls but not so great when you are in charge of that society and don’t want it destabilized.

    Well said. And that is when you separate the true believers from the power seekers flying a flag of convenience.

  34. Yeah. Libertarianism. That’s really going to do a good job with virus and aftermath. Hardeharhar.

    How to combat the virus? Or the Depression? By being free!!!! That’s all. Just be free and everything will be alright. (Freedom meaning the right for rich people to hoover up all the money and crush the boot against the necks of all the rest of us.)

    We cannot afford right-wing governments. Yeah, sure, when times are good, their incompetence, intransigence, asshole “principles,” and general stealing everything not nailed down doesn’t really matter.

    When times are bad, like right now, they make things much much much worse. I can’t wait till unemployment and rent moratoriums and aid to small businesses runs out.

    FDR was by no means perfect. But he wasn’t a complete fuckhead like these neoliberal, libertarian fuckheads, Democrat and Republican.

    • Agree: Hugo Silva
  35. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    I think that you are 100% correct. We are in a low-level civil war right now that will only get worse. Not like the War Between the States, but The Troubles in Northern Ireland - bombings, sabotage, kidnappings, assassinations, etc. 2032 seems to be Year Zero when the US gets a new form of government (according to Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics) or a possible breakup or both.

    Normies imagine that a Redstan America would be multi-racial, multi-religious, etc., but united by a common set of values and love for the Constitution. I don't think so. It'll be more like the US of the 1950s - overwhelmingly White and culturally Christian. In various ways, using both the law and financial subsidies, an attempt will be made to raise the moral tone of society and strengthen the family.

    Jews are caught between a rock and a hard place because while a Jew may or may not consider herself White, and the lefties don't, non-Whites regard them as White. Uber Whites if anything. On the other hand, a growing number of White Gentiles realize that Jews collectively constitute an aggressively hostile elite that has been in the forefront of political radicalism and cultural subversion dating back to the 19th Century. They will be unpopular in both Redstan and Bluestan. Good Whites will be in a bind, as well, because despite the fact that they are "liberal," they are still White and are hated by non-Whites for that crime.

    Bluestan, which will be populated by every race, ethnicity, religion, sex and sexual orientation on the planet will further break up as the various groups jockey for power. After all, what unites the Coalition of the Ascendant is hatred of Whites and the desire for free stuff and legal privileges. Crush Whitey and they'll turn on each other.

    Why haven’t Redstan America’s governments cut off the subsidies to higher ed in their states?

    Answer: they don’t share the values of the Redstan masses.

    Why would it be any different if Redstan was a separate country?

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @anon
    Why haven’t Redstan America’s governments cut off the subsidies to higher ed in their states?

    Because state governments have to live in the real world, not ideology-land. Knowledge is good, and state funded uni's are regarded as a good thing.

    Answer: they don’t share the values of the Redstan masses.

    Why do you believe this slogan is true? Who even writes like this anymore, "the masses", it's not 1930 something.

    The vast majority of citizens of all US states regard state funded uni's as a good thing. That may change in the next year or two if uni's switch from face to face to distance learning, but no one knows.
    , @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    As I wrote, there will be a period of instability, which will include violence. Eventually, the politicians will get with the program, so higher ed will be purged of the leftists. I hope, or else we will end up with the same problem.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The calculation will be different when we realize how much poorer we are than we think we are.
  36. anon[102] • Disclaimer says:

    I dont think libertarianism was ever really that popular AE. It was more “don’t call me racist” right-leaning kids looking for an acceptable, non-racist alternative to the Ethnic Marxism as pumped by their professors. Demographically the time is past for such silly ideas.

    I cant wait for private schools and gated communties are declared legally racist and diversity (I mean real friggin’ diversity) forced on rich whites and especially rich Jews in this country. I hope I live to see it. Their horror will be beautiful. The whispers…..(Diversity was only for poor redneck whites, not US!!!).

    • Agree: Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    • Replies: @Dutch Boy
    I had some interest in libertarianism when I was a young pup and had a belly full of college Marxism, 1970s style. It was mostly the William F. Buckley/NR type libertarianism (fusionism as he and his boys liked to call it). As I grew up and learned how the world works I was disillusioned with libertarianism of any sort. Mostly its just a defense of the economic interests of the capitalist/creditor class with a dollop of libertinism thrown in for fun. The former serves the interests of our odious overlords, the latter is intended to attract the young, the lecherous, and the unwary.
  37. anon[145] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alexander Turok
    Why haven't Redstan America's governments cut off the subsidies to higher ed in their states?

    Answer: they don't share the values of the Redstan masses.

    Why would it be any different if Redstan was a separate country?

    Why haven’t Redstan America’s governments cut off the subsidies to higher ed in their states?

    Because state governments have to live in the real world, not ideology-land. Knowledge is good, and state funded uni’s are regarded as a good thing.

    Answer: they don’t share the values of the Redstan masses.

    Why do you believe this slogan is true? Who even writes like this anymore, “the masses”, it’s not 1930 something.

    The vast majority of citizens of all US states regard state funded uni’s as a good thing. That may change in the next year or two if uni’s switch from face to face to distance learning, but no one knows.

    • Replies: @Alexander Turok

    Because state governments have to live in the real world, not ideology-land. Knowledge is good,
     
    Of course. If we don't have the government subsidizing it, it won't exist. I'm sure you support farm subsidies for the same reason. What kind of cruel man wouldn't want us to have food?

    The vast majority of citizens of all US states regard state funded uni’s as a good thing.
     
    Evidence please?
  38. @128
    All those guns and you can not even keep Detroit from turning into Somalia or keep men away from the girl's bathroom?

    I don’t live in Detroit, and we go to normal bathrooms where I live. Any further questions?

  39. @anon
    I dont think libertarianism was ever really that popular AE. It was more "don't call me racist" right-leaning kids looking for an acceptable, non-racist alternative to the Ethnic Marxism as pumped by their professors. Demographically the time is past for such silly ideas.

    I cant wait for private schools and gated communties are declared legally racist and diversity (I mean real friggin' diversity) forced on rich whites and especially rich Jews in this country. I hope I live to see it. Their horror will be beautiful. The whispers.....(Diversity was only for poor redneck whites, not US!!!).

    I had some interest in libertarianism when I was a young pup and had a belly full of college Marxism, 1970s style. It was mostly the William F. Buckley/NR type libertarianism (fusionism as he and his boys liked to call it). As I grew up and learned how the world works I was disillusioned with libertarianism of any sort. Mostly its just a defense of the economic interests of the capitalist/creditor class with a dollop of libertinism thrown in for fun. The former serves the interests of our odious overlords, the latter is intended to attract the young, the lecherous, and the unwary.

  40. anon[145] • Disclaimer says:

    The libertarian moment has been gone for generations. Because what is called libertarianism only appeals to a minority of people.

    In the US there have been libertarian moments, such as in the late 18th and early 19th centuries in some rural areas. Always in areas settled by NW Europeans, typically Scots-Irish or English. Communities self-organizing outside of government boundaries: electing their own judge, electing their own sheriff, selecting their own pastor, teaching their own children usually from the King James version.

    Culturally homogeneous, in fact a monoculture, defiantly religious, rather literate by the standards of the time. The closest thing to Libertopia seen in North America, and it always crumbled as more settlers moved into the region. Open borders always dooms Libertopia, but libertarians cannot close a border, history shows this.

    The TEA party is sometimes pointed to as a quasi-libertarian moment, but it was just 50-something middle class taxpayers petitioning government for redress. GOPe had no problem co-opting, using and ignoring the TEA party. TEA was much better organized than any Libertarian org ever has been, and they got used and ignored.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The libertarian moment has been gone for generations. Because what is called libertarianism only appeals to a minority of people.
     
    Yes, that's the problem for libertarians. They're the Trotskyists of the Right, a small fringe group with no mass support and no chance of ever gaining mass support. And being a fringe group like the Trotskyists they tend towards extreme utopian visions.

    Most people do not support extreme ideological positions. Most people do not want the whole of society dismantled so a few dreamers can try to create a perfect society.

    Most people want basically what we have now, with the worst excesses curbed and the worst abuses corrected. Most people want some kind of welfare state. Most people want capitalism, but with the rough edges smoothed down. Most people want a balance between freedom and security. Most people want government, but with less corruption.

    It's a horrible thought for dissident rightists and libertarians but most people want moderate policies.

    An even more horrible thought for dissident rightists is that most people can see both good and bad in globalism.
  41. “It was mostly the William F. Buckley/NR type libertarianism”

    You bin had [or self-deluded]. Buckley, a CIA asset, was never a libertarian of any description. A died-in-the-wool neocon and big government statist. In short, a fraud. He had nothing to do with libertarianism, never did, never will.

    “Regards”, onebornfree

    • Replies: @onebornfree
    The only possible libertarian at Buckleys rag would have been Joseph Sobran [ before he was fired]. But he rejected the term libertarian I believe. However he was an "original intent" constitutionalist, making him mostly libertarian in most others eyes.

    After he left NR he had his own [excellent] newsletter, to which I subscribed. Sobran eventually "saw the light" and became an anarchist, as he finally admitted in this beautiful piece of writing:

    "The Reluctant Anarchist" http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml

    A great writer. He is sorely missed.

    Regards, onebornfree
  42. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    Under Lenin, the Soviet Union promoted "free love" - easy divorce, legal abortion and decriminalized homosexuality. There even was serious discussion about outlawing marriage. This changed under Stalin and the official culture of the Soviet Union became quite puritanical. Even in the 1980s, they were tough on gays, lesbians and junkies. In the West, as the left became less economically radical (no one advocates the nationalization of industries other than the medical) it became more socially radical - easy abortion, gay marriage, promiscuity and legal porn. The old lefties would have declared this to be "bourgeois decadence."

    Many security services in Communist countries-particularly those in Warsaw Pact or in places like Cuba, places immediately proximate to the US/West Europe-thought a lot of the feminism and alternate sexuality stuff was not just a sign of late bourgeois collapse, but a weapon meant to subvert their naturally pure societies. Look up Markus Wolf of Stasi fame: his beliefs about Westerners were pretty normative stuff.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    The ironic thing is that the Commies promoted sexual equality. There were Soviet women in combat during WWII.

    The reality is despite the lip service to equality, the Commies were more redpilled to human nature than liberal Westerners, with their belief that people are alike all over and that they want the same things and are capable of the same things. The Commies realized that that wasn't true.

    I'll check out Markus Wolf. Thanks for the recommendation.
    , @utu
    "Many security services in Communist countries-particularly those in Warsaw Pact...thought a lot of the feminism and alternate sexuality stuff...a weapon meant to subvert their naturally pure societies. " They were supporting it and partly they created it just like they were supporting liberarianism. Whatever worked to undermine and destabilize their enemies.
  43. The problem ever with libertarian theory is in application — it has no mechanisms of enforcement and the second it attempts to design, it falls into its own trap about the needlessness of government.

    anyone who is conservative might be attracted to libertarian philosophy, I was and still think it has valuable concepts wit respect to social responsibility — however, you must be able to enforce and codify the practices — doing so requires a system — government.

    And then a way to pay for the government and its services.

  44. @Alexander Turok
    Why haven't Redstan America's governments cut off the subsidies to higher ed in their states?

    Answer: they don't share the values of the Redstan masses.

    Why would it be any different if Redstan was a separate country?

    As I wrote, there will be a period of instability, which will include violence. Eventually, the politicians will get with the program, so higher ed will be purged of the leftists. I hope, or else we will end up with the same problem.

    • Replies: @Alexander Turok
    Violent action, particularly in our culture, tends to be something we try after we attempt non-violent action. There's been no attempt at non-violent action. Your comment looks to me like wishful thinking. This pandemic seems to have created a new level of unreality and self-deception.
  45. @nebulafox
    Many security services in Communist countries-particularly those in Warsaw Pact or in places like Cuba, places immediately proximate to the US/West Europe-thought a lot of the feminism and alternate sexuality stuff was not just a sign of late bourgeois collapse, but a weapon meant to subvert their naturally pure societies. Look up Markus Wolf of Stasi fame: his beliefs about Westerners were pretty normative stuff.

    The ironic thing is that the Commies promoted sexual equality. There were Soviet women in combat during WWII.

    The reality is despite the lip service to equality, the Commies were more redpilled to human nature than liberal Westerners, with their belief that people are alike all over and that they want the same things and are capable of the same things. The Commies realized that that wasn’t true.

    I’ll check out Markus Wolf. Thanks for the recommendation.

  46. @onebornfree
    "It was mostly the William F. Buckley/NR type libertarianism"

    You bin had [or self-deluded]. Buckley, a CIA asset, was never a libertarian of any description. A died-in-the-wool neocon and big government statist. In short, a fraud. He had nothing to do with libertarianism, never did, never will.

    "Regards", onebornfree

    The only possible libertarian at Buckleys rag would have been Joseph Sobran [ before he was fired]. But he rejected the term libertarian I believe. However he was an “original intent” constitutionalist, making him mostly libertarian in most others eyes.

    After he left NR he had his own [excellent] newsletter, to which I subscribed. Sobran eventually “saw the light” and became an anarchist, as he finally admitted in this beautiful piece of writing:

    “The Reluctant Anarchist” http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml

    A great writer. He is sorely missed.

    Regards, onebornfree

  47. @another anon

    If there is a future Marius and a future Sulla hanging out there,
    Who would make up an American Optimates faction?
     
    There were numerous empires in history.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_empires

    Assuming that United States is an empire, why should US history repeat the history of Roman empire, and not, for example, Ottoman, Mughal or Zulu empire?

    https://www.amazon.com/Why-America-Not-New-Rome/dp/0262195933

    This debate reminds me the Soviet Union in the twenties. Everyone thought that Russian revolution would exactly repeat the fate of French revolution, and everyone looked for new Napoleon.
    Everyone missed the boring clerk holding the boring office of Party secretary.

    http://svobodnenoviny.eu/wp-content/uploads/stalin-1.jpg

    Everyone missed the boring clerk holding the boring office of Party secretary.

    Never underestimate the power of the HR Department.

    • Replies: @anon
    Never underestimate the power of the HR Department.

    Yes, for example Trotsky was easily displaced in the 1920's because Stalin had hand-picked all of his subordinates, and their subordinates. Trotsky's power base in the Red Army eroded away one man at a time, and he never really noticed.

    Stalin was an extra evil version of Catbert.
  48. @nebulafox
    Where's the political constituency for it? People in favor of the current status quo, or who benefit from it, are likely to gravitate to defending the neoliberal order in some way or another: just look at the social justice movement. They don't need to shift to a potentially discrediting ideology in the eyes of their rank and file. And people who are against it are likely not to favor a strengthening of market forces, both on the Left and increasingly on the Right, because the inevitable beneficiaries of that will be those currently in charge, regardless of the intentions of libertarians. I've said it before: we essentially have institutionalized socialism for politically connected large corporations, at the expense of small ones. The relationship between the two is intimate to the point where Congress feels the need to negotiate with Amazon to get Jeff Bezos to appear rather than just ordering him. They will win from further deregulation in practice.

    This is far from some fringe "alt-right" trend: just look at where guys like Hawley or Carlson are going. That's the future, not libertarianism.

    >It’s a variation on the prediction often echoed here that Sulla is on the way.

    I think we're at the period right before the Gracchi: so not quite there yet, but going down that road. Also, the political contours of the pseudo-meritocratic American elite are quite different from the aristocratic "boni" of the late Roman Republic, so I'd assume the politics of this neo-Sulla would be different.

    If there is a future Marius and a future Sulla hanging out there, I wonder what they are doing right now? Sulla was a declassed loser with a dissolute lifestyle until he was in his early 30s, and though Marius had a reasonably successful military career early in life, he didn't really catch fire until his late 30s.

    To the extent that the libertarian moment could be coming, it’s not in the sense of some recognized political or cultural entity, nothing like that. I think it will be expressed primarily in the two things mentioned in the post–the death or reformation of the Fed and the political dissolution of the US.

  49. @Daniel H
    If there is a future Marius and a future Sulla hanging out there,

    Who would make up an American Optimates faction?

    The Cloud People. We are the Popularis.

  50. Massachusetts pull the plug? I can think of at least ten states that would vote them out first.

  51. @anon
    Why haven’t Redstan America’s governments cut off the subsidies to higher ed in their states?

    Because state governments have to live in the real world, not ideology-land. Knowledge is good, and state funded uni's are regarded as a good thing.

    Answer: they don’t share the values of the Redstan masses.

    Why do you believe this slogan is true? Who even writes like this anymore, "the masses", it's not 1930 something.

    The vast majority of citizens of all US states regard state funded uni's as a good thing. That may change in the next year or two if uni's switch from face to face to distance learning, but no one knows.

    Because state governments have to live in the real world, not ideology-land. Knowledge is good,

    Of course. If we don’t have the government subsidizing it, it won’t exist. I’m sure you support farm subsidies for the same reason. What kind of cruel man wouldn’t want us to have food?

    The vast majority of citizens of all US states regard state funded uni’s as a good thing.

    Evidence please?

    • Replies: @Curle
    “ The vast majority of citizens of all US states regard state funded uni’s as a good thing.”

    Yes, if the poll were taken in 1980. Times have changed. People have been pronoun-pilled.
    , @anon
    @anon

    Because state governments have to live in the real world, not ideology-land. Knowledge is good,
     
    Of course. If we don’t have the government subsidizing it, it won’t exist.

    Non sequitur.

    I’m sure you support farm subsidies for the same reason. What kind of cruel man wouldn’t want us to have food?

    Another non sequitur.


    The vast majority of citizens of all US states regard state funded uni’s as a good thing.
     
    Evidence please?

    The continued increases in enrollment in state uni's, plus continued funding by state legislatures. In other words, reality. When reality collides with some theory, which should be abandoned?

    Now, this might well change; certainly a shift to online teaching cannot be supported at current tuition levels. Not at the public and not at the private level. Expensive liberal arts schools sell an experience that includes meeting potential socially significant persons, that vanishes with online. It will be very interesting to see how Grove City and Hillsdale deal with this situation.

    For example, one doesn't have to drop $70,000 / annum on a liberal arts school to read classical texts, not when the Harvard 5-foot shelf of books is for sale cheap; not when the contents of those books are available via Gutenberg for free.

    These issues are important. Your passive-aggressive liberteeny snark is not. Consider replying in good faith and drop the trolling.

  52. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    As I wrote, there will be a period of instability, which will include violence. Eventually, the politicians will get with the program, so higher ed will be purged of the leftists. I hope, or else we will end up with the same problem.

    Violent action, particularly in our culture, tends to be something we try after we attempt non-violent action. There’s been no attempt at non-violent action. Your comment looks to me like wishful thinking. This pandemic seems to have created a new level of unreality and self-deception.

    • Replies: @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    Give it time over the next 12 years. No matter who wins in 2020, the other side won't accept it as legit.
  53. Talk is cheap. Money isn’t. And the investors think America will pay its debts. Certainly, it’s possible that irresponsible politicians could load up with so much that investors lose confidence, it isn’t imminent.

    Furthermore, if you just look at how red and blue states actually govern themselves, there isn’t a big difference. There is some difference, I prefer the red state model, but not a large difference. As I pointed out, red states aren’t cutting off higher education subsidies. And blue states, despite all that green stuff, aren’t putting it into practice. Consider gas taxes. America has significantly lower gas taxes than other industrialized countries:

    https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/taxation/consumption-tax-trends-2014_ctt-2014-en#page136

    Blue states have more… but not that much more. Not anywhere near European levels:

    https://taxfoundation.org/state-gas-tax-rates-2019/

    Some will tell me politicians will be the last people dragged into the conflict. Because that’s how conflicts usually work, right? Politicians are just dragged into them? No! Politicians are the ones provoking them. As Goring is supposed to have said:

    Why of course the people don’t want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don’t want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

  54. It’s time never was and never will be. It’s simply another abstract political fantasy, like communism. Indulging in fantasies is fine and mostly harmless when things are humming along ticketyboo. But we are inching—or perhaps yarding—our way toward serious conflict. It’s time to put the fantasies aside and focus on how we can save what can be saved.

  55. @Alexander Turok

    Because state governments have to live in the real world, not ideology-land. Knowledge is good,
     
    Of course. If we don't have the government subsidizing it, it won't exist. I'm sure you support farm subsidies for the same reason. What kind of cruel man wouldn't want us to have food?

    The vast majority of citizens of all US states regard state funded uni’s as a good thing.
     
    Evidence please?

    “ The vast majority of citizens of all US states regard state funded uni’s as a good thing.”

    Yes, if the poll were taken in 1980. Times have changed. People have been pronoun-pilled.

  56. anon[315] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hypnotoad666

    Everyone missed the boring clerk holding the boring office of Party secretary.
     
    Never underestimate the power of the HR Department.

    Never underestimate the power of the HR Department.

    Yes, for example Trotsky was easily displaced in the 1920’s because Stalin had hand-picked all of his subordinates, and their subordinates. Trotsky’s power base in the Red Army eroded away one man at a time, and he never really noticed.

    Stalin was an extra evil version of Catbert.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Trotsky did not have an iota of Stalin's practical political skills, and also spectacularly failed to resonate with the rank and file of the party.
  57. @A123
    Given the aggressiveness and military capabilities of other nations the question is, "Could a Libertarian nation defend itself?"

    In the era of sailing ships and rifles, small arms proficient civilians could link up with a small core of professional soldiers to field an effective combat force.

    In the era of tanks and planes, it is hard to see how Libertarianism can fund or field central government units for mechanized warfare.

    If you want peace, prepare for war. -- "Epitoma Rei Militaris," by the Roman general Vegetius

    PEACE 😷

    Irregulars would do fine.

    The much-vaunted US Death Machine is 0 for 4 against rag-tag bunches of peasants with 1950s weaponry (Vietnam; Somalia; Iraq; Afghanistan). I wouldn’t expect much in a home derby against irregulars: there’s no point in controlling the skies if you don’t control the night.

    The days of standard large-scale infantry engagements have passed: everyone now knows that to beat a superior force you draw them into your turf and bleed them white – avoiding set-piece engagements.

    That’s also a gift that keeps on giving after the dust settles: quite apart from high levels of wounded invaders, there’s the long tail of PTSD, alcoholism, drug abuse, family breakdown and suicide.

    Nothing drives a young adventurer out of his mind faster than seeing other young adventurers getting their legs blown off without setting sight on the enemy. It’s why infantry always hates the other side’s snipers.

    Another War of Secession in the US would be 4G-on-steroids, if only because of the near-parity of small arms. The ease with which irregulars could infiltrate logistics chains and the ‘home front’ wouldn’t help either.

    And in the end the US would lose, because they would be trying to re-fight the Ardennes or Tet or Fallujah or Okinawa. Can’t do that when you can’t tell if MAMs in your home town are ‘Us’ or ‘Them’.

    This was the South’s great strategic failure: they took the ‘honourable’ approach and fought the War of Northern Aggression like the British fought the War of Independence (i.e., organised set-piece warfare) instead of ‘fighting dirty’ (as an insurgency – like the Maori in New Zealand at about the same time, and the Afghans in Afghanistan against the British in the 1830s).

    • Agree: Mark G.
    • Replies: @Znzn
    How war guerilla wars did the Romans lose? Aside from the Germans?
  58. @anon
    The libertarian moment has been gone for generations. Because what is called libertarianism only appeals to a minority of people.

    In the US there have been libertarian moments, such as in the late 18th and early 19th centuries in some rural areas. Always in areas settled by NW Europeans, typically Scots-Irish or English. Communities self-organizing outside of government boundaries: electing their own judge, electing their own sheriff, selecting their own pastor, teaching their own children usually from the King James version.

    Culturally homogeneous, in fact a monoculture, defiantly religious, rather literate by the standards of the time. The closest thing to Libertopia seen in North America, and it always crumbled as more settlers moved into the region. Open borders always dooms Libertopia, but libertarians cannot close a border, history shows this.

    The TEA party is sometimes pointed to as a quasi-libertarian moment, but it was just 50-something middle class taxpayers petitioning government for redress. GOPe had no problem co-opting, using and ignoring the TEA party. TEA was much better organized than any Libertarian org ever has been, and they got used and ignored.

    The libertarian moment has been gone for generations. Because what is called libertarianism only appeals to a minority of people.

    Yes, that’s the problem for libertarians. They’re the Trotskyists of the Right, a small fringe group with no mass support and no chance of ever gaining mass support. And being a fringe group like the Trotskyists they tend towards extreme utopian visions.

    Most people do not support extreme ideological positions. Most people do not want the whole of society dismantled so a few dreamers can try to create a perfect society.

    Most people want basically what we have now, with the worst excesses curbed and the worst abuses corrected. Most people want some kind of welfare state. Most people want capitalism, but with the rough edges smoothed down. Most people want a balance between freedom and security. Most people want government, but with less corruption.

    It’s a horrible thought for dissident rightists and libertarians but most people want moderate policies.

    An even more horrible thought for dissident rightists is that most people can see both good and bad in globalism.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @Mark G.
    One of the things I liked about the libertarian magazine "Reason" back in the old days was that they would give real world examples of libertarian ideas in action. If there was a town that had something like a privately run fire department or garbage collection system you could depend on "Reason" to find it and do an article about it, no matter how obscure that town might be.

    They've gotten away from that in recent years. They'll do an article on something like the benefits of open immigration but don't point to any current examples of countries where it actually works. If they use historical examples, it's always an apples and oranges comparison like comparing nineteenth century America, a low population country with no welfare state and a melting pot ideology, with the current United States.

    Libertarians would do better if they stayed more reality based and looked for either current or historical examples to illustrate the benefits of smaller government. They need to be more aware you can have too much government but also too little government. There is no purely libertarian country currently or in history and there may be a good reason for that. But there are plenty of countries with lower levels of government doing better than countries with higher levels of government and that is what people should be studying.
  59. 128 says:

    I am saying all those white gun owners with their guns should have done something about Detroit turning black, and turn their neighborhoods into fortresses, or do something about the black people settling into their residential neighborhoods, instead of running away, since the only thing they seemed to have accomplished are shooting up schools and the US white homicide rate being multiples times the homicide rate of Portugal and Spain, which are basically the Alabama and Mississippi of Western Europe. And about men going into female bathrooms, and all the people pushing for it and promoting it in places like North Carolina, well what are your guns for? Shooting up the local high school?

    • Disagree: Cloudbuster
    • Replies: @paranoid goy
    Really, you bin fomenting White violence agains de fenceless black peoples? Right behine yah, broe, den, whenna cops they come, we-all can just walk away whistlin, let dem honkies catch da rap a change, hur?
    Talk about finding your solutions in the enemy's songbook!
  60. @Alexander Turok
    Violent action, particularly in our culture, tends to be something we try after we attempt non-violent action. There's been no attempt at non-violent action. Your comment looks to me like wishful thinking. This pandemic seems to have created a new level of unreality and self-deception.

    Give it time over the next 12 years. No matter who wins in 2020, the other side won’t accept it as legit.

  61. @advancedatheist
    Our elites don't feel threatened by libertarian attacks on central banking, the income tax and fiat currency. Otherwise they would treat libertarians the way they abuse white nationalists.

    Otherwise, how do libertarian beliefs differ from our elites' ideology regarding open borders, indiscriminate immigration, sexual freedom and letting billionaires do pretty much whatever they want?

    Brother, the majority of questions, guesses, ‘answers’ and accusations on this topic, here, today, so far, is this:
    Every single thing mentioned here, is straight from the Protocols. I cannot believe the Protocols is not hanging out of every Unz Review fan’s pocket. Here, see my tattered and well-studied copy? It saves so much time arguing over the different viewpoints Zion created for us to argue over, so we don’t start thinking for ourselves. Every single one of the talking points here, are pure Protocol, and every commenter tris to upstage the rest by being more elaborate in his following of the proferred…. er… protocol?
    “Liberty: n. Acting outside the bounds of decency”, a gift from Zion!

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    It's fun when online handles fit like a glove.
  62. @128
    I am saying all those white gun owners with their guns should have done something about Detroit turning black, and turn their neighborhoods into fortresses, or do something about the black people settling into their residential neighborhoods, instead of running away, since the only thing they seemed to have accomplished are shooting up schools and the US white homicide rate being multiples times the homicide rate of Portugal and Spain, which are basically the Alabama and Mississippi of Western Europe. And about men going into female bathrooms, and all the people pushing for it and promoting it in places like North Carolina, well what are your guns for? Shooting up the local high school?

    Really, you bin fomenting White violence agains de fenceless black peoples? Right behine yah, broe, den, whenna cops they come, we-all can just walk away whistlin, let dem honkies catch da rap a change, hur?
    Talk about finding your solutions in the enemy’s songbook!

  63. anon[323] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alexander Turok

    Because state governments have to live in the real world, not ideology-land. Knowledge is good,
     
    Of course. If we don't have the government subsidizing it, it won't exist. I'm sure you support farm subsidies for the same reason. What kind of cruel man wouldn't want us to have food?

    The vast majority of citizens of all US states regard state funded uni’s as a good thing.
     
    Evidence please?

    Because state governments have to live in the real world, not ideology-land. Knowledge is good,

    Of course. If we don’t have the government subsidizing it, it won’t exist.

    Non sequitur.

    I’m sure you support farm subsidies for the same reason. What kind of cruel man wouldn’t want us to have food?

    Another non sequitur.

    The vast majority of citizens of all US states regard state funded uni’s as a good thing.

    Evidence please?

    The continued increases in enrollment in state uni’s, plus continued funding by state legislatures. In other words, reality. When reality collides with some theory, which should be abandoned?

    Now, this might well change; certainly a shift to online teaching cannot be supported at current tuition levels. Not at the public and not at the private level. Expensive liberal arts schools sell an experience that includes meeting potential socially significant persons, that vanishes with online. It will be very interesting to see how Grove City and Hillsdale deal with this situation.

    For example, one doesn’t have to drop $70,000 / annum on a liberal arts school to read classical texts, not when the Harvard 5-foot shelf of books is for sale cheap; not when the contents of those books are available via Gutenberg for free.

    These issues are important. Your passive-aggressive liberteeny snark is not. Consider replying in good faith and drop the trolling.

    • Replies: @Alexander Turok

    Another non sequitur.
     
    It's an implicit question, I noticed you didn't answer. Do you support farm subsidies or not?

    The continued increases in enrollment in state uni’s, plus continued funding by state legislatures
     
    "Subsidies for food are popular because people are consuming more food," now that's a non-sequitur. Do you not see the circular reasoning there? You said the states fund it because it's popular, and then proved it was popular by pointing to the state funding.

    Your passive-aggressive liberteeny snark is not. Consider replying in good faith and drop the trolling.
     
    Okay, I'll be regular-aggressive: you're not very smart. My reply was in good faith and I meant what I said.
  64. @Kratoklastes
    Irregulars would do fine.

    The much-vaunted US Death Machine is 0 for 4 against rag-tag bunches of peasants with 1950s weaponry (Vietnam; Somalia; Iraq; Afghanistan). I wouldn't expect much in a home derby against irregulars: there's no point in controlling the skies if you don't control the night.

    The days of standard large-scale infantry engagements have passed: everyone now knows that to beat a superior force you draw them into your turf and bleed them white - avoiding set-piece engagements.

    That's also a gift that keeps on giving after the dust settles: quite apart from high levels of wounded invaders, there's the long tail of PTSD, alcoholism, drug abuse, family breakdown and suicide.

    Nothing drives a young adventurer out of his mind faster than seeing other young adventurers getting their legs blown off without setting sight on the enemy. It's why infantry always hates the other side's snipers.

    Another War of Secession in the US would be 4G-on-steroids, if only because of the near-parity of small arms. The ease with which irregulars could infiltrate logistics chains and the 'home front' wouldn't help either.

    And in the end the US would lose, because they would be trying to re-fight the Ardennes or Tet or Fallujah or Okinawa. Can't do that when you can't tell if MAMs in your home town are 'Us' or 'Them'.

    This was the South's great strategic failure: they took the 'honourable' approach and fought the War of Northern Aggression like the British fought the War of Independence (i.e., organised set-piece warfare) instead of 'fighting dirty' (as an insurgency - like the Maori in New Zealand at about the same time, and the Afghans in Afghanistan against the British in the 1830s).

    How war guerilla wars did the Romans lose? Aside from the Germans?

  65. @anon
    @anon

    Because state governments have to live in the real world, not ideology-land. Knowledge is good,
     
    Of course. If we don’t have the government subsidizing it, it won’t exist.

    Non sequitur.

    I’m sure you support farm subsidies for the same reason. What kind of cruel man wouldn’t want us to have food?

    Another non sequitur.


    The vast majority of citizens of all US states regard state funded uni’s as a good thing.
     
    Evidence please?

    The continued increases in enrollment in state uni's, plus continued funding by state legislatures. In other words, reality. When reality collides with some theory, which should be abandoned?

    Now, this might well change; certainly a shift to online teaching cannot be supported at current tuition levels. Not at the public and not at the private level. Expensive liberal arts schools sell an experience that includes meeting potential socially significant persons, that vanishes with online. It will be very interesting to see how Grove City and Hillsdale deal with this situation.

    For example, one doesn't have to drop $70,000 / annum on a liberal arts school to read classical texts, not when the Harvard 5-foot shelf of books is for sale cheap; not when the contents of those books are available via Gutenberg for free.

    These issues are important. Your passive-aggressive liberteeny snark is not. Consider replying in good faith and drop the trolling.

    Another non sequitur.

    It’s an implicit question, I noticed you didn’t answer. Do you support farm subsidies or not?

    The continued increases in enrollment in state uni’s, plus continued funding by state legislatures

    “Subsidies for food are popular because people are consuming more food,” now that’s a non-sequitur. Do you not see the circular reasoning there? You said the states fund it because it’s popular, and then proved it was popular by pointing to the state funding.

    Your passive-aggressive liberteeny snark is not. Consider replying in good faith and drop the trolling.

    Okay, I’ll be regular-aggressive: you’re not very smart. My reply was in good faith and I meant what I said.

    • Replies: @anon
    . Do you support farm subsidies or not?

    Non sequitur.

    The continued increases in enrollment in state uni’s, plus continued funding by state legislatures

    “Subsidies for food are popular because people are consuming more food,” now that’s a non-sequitur.

    More like a strawman.

    Do you not see the circular reasoning there? You said the states fund it because it’s popular, and then proved it was popular by pointing to the state funding.

    You have a reading comprehension problem.

    Your passive-aggressive liberteeny snark is not. Consider replying in good faith and drop the trolling.

    Turok
    Okay, I’ll be regular-aggressive: you’re not very smart.

    Yawn. That's just more teenager-level trolling. Not even slightly aggressive, just whiney. Like a little child.

    My reply was in good faith and I meant what I said.

    Nah, you're just trolling for flames in a childish manner. It is obvious you have nothing serious to say at all. Not about post secondary education, not about the current situation within universities, not about much of anything.

    Just troll harder, boy! Maybe it'll work next time!

    Say, isn't it time for you to flog your own website again?

    lol
  66. @dfordoom

    The libertarian moment has been gone for generations. Because what is called libertarianism only appeals to a minority of people.
     
    Yes, that's the problem for libertarians. They're the Trotskyists of the Right, a small fringe group with no mass support and no chance of ever gaining mass support. And being a fringe group like the Trotskyists they tend towards extreme utopian visions.

    Most people do not support extreme ideological positions. Most people do not want the whole of society dismantled so a few dreamers can try to create a perfect society.

    Most people want basically what we have now, with the worst excesses curbed and the worst abuses corrected. Most people want some kind of welfare state. Most people want capitalism, but with the rough edges smoothed down. Most people want a balance between freedom and security. Most people want government, but with less corruption.

    It's a horrible thought for dissident rightists and libertarians but most people want moderate policies.

    An even more horrible thought for dissident rightists is that most people can see both good and bad in globalism.

    One of the things I liked about the libertarian magazine “Reason” back in the old days was that they would give real world examples of libertarian ideas in action. If there was a town that had something like a privately run fire department or garbage collection system you could depend on “Reason” to find it and do an article about it, no matter how obscure that town might be.

    They’ve gotten away from that in recent years. They’ll do an article on something like the benefits of open immigration but don’t point to any current examples of countries where it actually works. If they use historical examples, it’s always an apples and oranges comparison like comparing nineteenth century America, a low population country with no welfare state and a melting pot ideology, with the current United States.

    Libertarians would do better if they stayed more reality based and looked for either current or historical examples to illustrate the benefits of smaller government. They need to be more aware you can have too much government but also too little government. There is no purely libertarian country currently or in history and there may be a good reason for that. But there are plenty of countries with lower levels of government doing better than countries with higher levels of government and that is what people should be studying.

    • Agree: dfordoom
  67. @advancedatheist
    Our elites don't feel threatened by libertarian attacks on central banking, the income tax and fiat currency. Otherwise they would treat libertarians the way they abuse white nationalists.

    Otherwise, how do libertarian beliefs differ from our elites' ideology regarding open borders, indiscriminate immigration, sexual freedom and letting billionaires do pretty much whatever they want?

    Reality will dictate events and the outcome will be something many libertarians putatively hope for now.

  68. @songbird
    Honestly, I find Razib's Sulla theory completely flabbergasting.

    I take it that Sulla is Razib's favorite character out of Roman history, and that he perceives him as a reformer, but that's about as far as I get with understanding it, before all the bizarre aspects of the analogy gang up on me, and I start perceiving it as some really idiosyncratic joke.

    But what does it have to do with the modern world or with this pervasive anti-racism ideology? With this mass invasion? With this trans-mania? With NGOs? With the media and universities? With transnational corporations? If nothing, then how can it possibly apply?

    Sulla a familiar right wing strongman archetype without the emotional investment that similar types closer to us in time carry with them.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    One of the more interesting features of "RUR" is that the in-play namers of the robots Marius and Sulla believed they were lovers.
  69. @Alexander Turok
    Why haven't Redstan America's governments cut off the subsidies to higher ed in their states?

    Answer: they don't share the values of the Redstan masses.

    Why would it be any different if Redstan was a separate country?

    The calculation will be different when we realize how much poorer we are than we think we are.

  70. Forget the confederate secession, real libertarians want to know why Massachusetts didn’t pull the plug fifty years earlier.

    Everyone I know in Massachusetts thinks that aid to black people “has never been tried” and ought to be expanded. They’re just as deluded about blacks as their Abolitionist forebears were.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  71. @paranoid goy
    Brother, the majority of questions, guesses, 'answers' and accusations on this topic, here, today, so far, is this:
    Every single thing mentioned here, is straight from the Protocols. I cannot believe the Protocols is not hanging out of every Unz Review fan's pocket. Here, see my tattered and well-studied copy? It saves so much time arguing over the different viewpoints Zion created for us to argue over, so we don't start thinking for ourselves. Every single one of the talking points here, are pure Protocol, and every commenter tris to upstage the rest by being more elaborate in his following of the proferred.... er... protocol?
    "Liberty: n. Acting outside the bounds of decency", a gift from Zion!

    It’s fun when online handles fit like a glove.

    • Replies: @paranoid goy
    Had to look up "epigone" when I first came across you. Har har. Thank goodness for dictionaries, the plot sucks, but at least they explain every word nicely...
    Protocol 1 para. 1 sentence 1: "...let us consider carefully the meaning of words..."
    But you knew that.
  72. utu says:
    @nebulafox
    Many security services in Communist countries-particularly those in Warsaw Pact or in places like Cuba, places immediately proximate to the US/West Europe-thought a lot of the feminism and alternate sexuality stuff was not just a sign of late bourgeois collapse, but a weapon meant to subvert their naturally pure societies. Look up Markus Wolf of Stasi fame: his beliefs about Westerners were pretty normative stuff.

    “Many security services in Communist countries-particularly those in Warsaw Pact…thought a lot of the feminism and alternate sexuality stuff…a weapon meant to subvert their naturally pure societies. ” They were supporting it and partly they created it just like they were supporting liberarianism. Whatever worked to undermine and destabilize their enemies.

  73. anon[379] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alexander Turok

    Another non sequitur.
     
    It's an implicit question, I noticed you didn't answer. Do you support farm subsidies or not?

    The continued increases in enrollment in state uni’s, plus continued funding by state legislatures
     
    "Subsidies for food are popular because people are consuming more food," now that's a non-sequitur. Do you not see the circular reasoning there? You said the states fund it because it's popular, and then proved it was popular by pointing to the state funding.

    Your passive-aggressive liberteeny snark is not. Consider replying in good faith and drop the trolling.
     
    Okay, I'll be regular-aggressive: you're not very smart. My reply was in good faith and I meant what I said.

    . Do you support farm subsidies or not?

    Non sequitur.

    The continued increases in enrollment in state uni’s, plus continued funding by state legislatures

    “Subsidies for food are popular because people are consuming more food,” now that’s a non-sequitur.

    More like a strawman.

    Do you not see the circular reasoning there? You said the states fund it because it’s popular, and then proved it was popular by pointing to the state funding.

    You have a reading comprehension problem.

    Your passive-aggressive liberteeny snark is not. Consider replying in good faith and drop the trolling.

    Turok
    Okay, I’ll be regular-aggressive: you’re not very smart.

    Yawn. That’s just more teenager-level trolling. Not even slightly aggressive, just whiney. Like a little child.

    My reply was in good faith and I meant what I said.

    Nah, you’re just trolling for flames in a childish manner. It is obvious you have nothing serious to say at all. Not about post secondary education, not about the current situation within universities, not about much of anything.

    Just troll harder, boy! Maybe it’ll work next time!

    Say, isn’t it time for you to flog your own website again?

    lol

    • Replies: @Alexander Turok
    You obviously have no idea what a "non sequitur" is, but think you get smart boy points every time you use the phrase.
  74. utu says:

    Libertarians are the safest opposition and dissent that any oligarchic system could dream having. Ex definition they can’t unify and organize as they do not recognize the value of solidarity and cohesion. Actually they are not the opposition. They are a lighting rod that attracts the disaffected young people carrying a large potential energy and discharge that energy’s into the ground so the potential energy is diffused. Once the young person wakes up and see the truth of libertarianism he is already defanged and neutered. The chief function of libertarians is to help the system by attacking government to weaken it so any attempts of constraining the privileges of large corporations including the banking system will fail. In case of the banking system libertarians like our host here are limited in their criticism to the meme of ‘1913’. The weekend government with senseless privatizations and outsourcing schemes is turned into inefficient sluggish and toothless cow that everybody ends up distrusting or even hating. It is self fulfilling libertarian prophesy. The objective is to create a perfect welfare state for the rich where the state is too weak and too corrupt to control the rich and the poor are too demoralized to realize that they could demand form the government much more.

  75. @Audacious Epigone
    Sulla a familiar right wing strongman archetype without the emotional investment that similar types closer to us in time carry with them.

    One of the more interesting features of “RUR” is that the in-play namers of the robots Marius and Sulla believed they were lovers.

  76. The corona virus is bringing Americans together. Millions can see for themselves that we are in very bad shape as a nation. For me, it has pushed me over the edge. I did not fully realize just how bad it is. Optimism has been extinguished. I see no way forward.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    The corona virus is bringing Americans together. Millions can see for themselves that we are in very bad shape as a nation. For me, it has pushed me over the edge. I did not fully realize just how bad it is. Optimism has been extinguished. I see no way forward.
     
    It's certainly brought the dangers of politicising every single aspect of life into sharp relief. I've been shocked by the willingness of so many to see a public health problem purely in terms of political advantage. And both the "left" and the "right" have been equally guilty.

    And the degree of governmental incompetence that this has revealed in countries like the US has been staggering and demoralising. Third World nations have handled this situation better than the US.

    It's also been a weird experience seeing governments that I'd dismissed as packs of gibbering lefty nutjobs (such as the current New Zealand government) handling the situation calmly and efficiently, with an actual coherent plan that has clearly worked.
  77. @iffen
    The corona virus is bringing Americans together. Millions can see for themselves that we are in very bad shape as a nation. For me, it has pushed me over the edge. I did not fully realize just how bad it is. Optimism has been extinguished. I see no way forward.

    The corona virus is bringing Americans together. Millions can see for themselves that we are in very bad shape as a nation. For me, it has pushed me over the edge. I did not fully realize just how bad it is. Optimism has been extinguished. I see no way forward.

    It’s certainly brought the dangers of politicising every single aspect of life into sharp relief. I’ve been shocked by the willingness of so many to see a public health problem purely in terms of political advantage. And both the “left” and the “right” have been equally guilty.

    And the degree of governmental incompetence that this has revealed in countries like the US has been staggering and demoralising. Third World nations have handled this situation better than the US.

    It’s also been a weird experience seeing governments that I’d dismissed as packs of gibbering lefty nutjobs (such as the current New Zealand government) handling the situation calmly and efficiently, with an actual coherent plan that has clearly worked.

    • Replies: @iffen
    the dangers of politicising every single aspect of life into sharp relief.

    You have written this like you think it is a bad thing.

    with an actual coherent plan that has clearly worked.

    I think that it is way too early to make this statement.
  78. @anon
    . Do you support farm subsidies or not?

    Non sequitur.

    The continued increases in enrollment in state uni’s, plus continued funding by state legislatures

    “Subsidies for food are popular because people are consuming more food,” now that’s a non-sequitur.

    More like a strawman.

    Do you not see the circular reasoning there? You said the states fund it because it’s popular, and then proved it was popular by pointing to the state funding.

    You have a reading comprehension problem.

    Your passive-aggressive liberteeny snark is not. Consider replying in good faith and drop the trolling.

    Turok
    Okay, I’ll be regular-aggressive: you’re not very smart.

    Yawn. That's just more teenager-level trolling. Not even slightly aggressive, just whiney. Like a little child.

    My reply was in good faith and I meant what I said.

    Nah, you're just trolling for flames in a childish manner. It is obvious you have nothing serious to say at all. Not about post secondary education, not about the current situation within universities, not about much of anything.

    Just troll harder, boy! Maybe it'll work next time!

    Say, isn't it time for you to flog your own website again?

    lol

    You obviously have no idea what a “non sequitur” is, but think you get smart boy points every time you use the phrase.

    • Replies: @anon
    You obviously have no idea what a “non sequitur” is, but think you get smart boy points every time you use the phrase.

    Let's recall your original troll:

    Why haven’t Redstan America’s governments cut off the subsidies to higher ed in their states?
     
    A remarkably ignorant and foolish question.

    I am sure that stating an obvious fact regarding US State-funded uni's in no way says anything about Federal agricultural policy - the second thing does not follow from the first. Raging about farm subsidies after raging about higher ed is a non-sequitur.

    "Smart boy points" - lol - I wonder, are you one of Vox Day's fanboys, or are you one of the bitter trolls who got banned from his site? Either way it is self evident you are trolling here, looking for flames and clicks on your site. Not an actual good-faith discussion.

    Alexander Trollok - lol.

    Value added PS: It isn't at all clear how many private uni's will survive the next year in the US. Helicopter parents are going to demand absolute safety for their "kids", and that is something no college can provide - due diligence, yes, safety? Nah. If many or most of the small (3,000 students) liberal arts colleges across the US wind up closing that will be another "Libertarian moment" - not. Because the survivors will be State-funded or privates with massive endowments such as Harvard. The "ends against the middle" yet again.
  79. @Reg Cæsar

    The libertarian moment has passed.
     
    But every critic of libertarianism has his own personal-liberty ax to grind. Particularly egregious are "rights" to abortion and third-party reproduction, neither of which can be defended by any honest libertarian, as they are crimes with victims, not rights.

    Or a purported right to immigration, which is only conceivable given self-sufficiency of the immigrant, rarely the case these days.

    >>But every critic of libertarianism has his own personal-liberty ax to grind. Particularly egregious are “rights” to abortion and third-party reproduction, neither of which can be defended by any honest libertarian, as they are crimes with victims, not rights.<<

    As do you, grinding your own ax. Real libertarians seldom agree 100% with other libertarians on everything. For one thing, they think for themselves. Not every human action can be put through some "libertarian thought grinder" and come out identically.

    Some hard core libertarian intellectuals, most, support legal abortion. Though most don't champion people doing it. Others disagree. I'm not sure what third-party reproduction actually is supposed to be, so hard to judge. If you mean surrogacy, then most would I believe support that.

    This capacity for honest disagreement over issues is a strong point of the libertarian tendency. It isn't a dogma or religion that can be spelled out in detail and nailed to the cathedral door. Also, and very important, many libertarian policy solutions need fairly widespread acceptance before they will work as intended. Much of that is cultural and sociological. Some are attracted to libertarian ideas because they think it is a "no rules" kind of society notion. In truth, it requires a high degree of voluntary cooperation and social norming. It takes education and voluntary agreement.

    Which is why it is not a Utopian vision as some critics claim, Straw Man style. It can't be imposed from the top. Some people will prefer more authoritarianism than others. De-centralism is thus a necessary precondition to "more libertarianism" in society. With the Pandemic, we learn very clearly that there is a marked difference in Blue vs. Red, urban vs. rural, sheep vs. goats.

    The Comrades in the national media barking forums were all demanding "national" rules, but had no actual logical rationale for that. Their instincts are to centralize and control. Federalize. Statewide edicts at the very least. In more libertarian areas, local authorities and even law enforcement resists that. I think the Pandemic is a "learning opportunity" for all who think for themselves. There is LA and NYC and Texas and Florida. Kansas and New Jersey. Thank goodness.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    In truth, it requires a high degree of voluntary cooperation and social norming.
     
    What do you propose to do with those who choose not to voluntarily cooperate?

    By social norming I presume you mean indoctrination?
    , @Reg Cæsar

    Some hard core libertarian intellectuals, most, support legal abortion.
     
    Terms like libertarian, liberal, conservative, populist, and the like make sense as adjectives, not as nouns. This is where much analysis gets in trouble.

    I haven't kept up with polls, but for decades they suggested a consistent third or so self-described libertarians opposed legal abortion outright, as a violation of their underlying principle. Many of the rest were slow to call it a right, opposing criminalizination for more practical reasons, eg, definition, enforcement...

    Even the remainder who do support its legality on the basis of self-ownership are forced to admit the other side has valid points that must be addressed.

    Compare this to the infantile stance of feminists. Why should we take their demands for liberty seriously on this one issue, when they have no respect for it anywhere else?

  80. @A123
    Given the aggressiveness and military capabilities of other nations the question is, "Could a Libertarian nation defend itself?"

    In the era of sailing ships and rifles, small arms proficient civilians could link up with a small core of professional soldiers to field an effective combat force.

    In the era of tanks and planes, it is hard to see how Libertarianism can fund or field central government units for mechanized warfare.

    If you want peace, prepare for war. -- "Epitoma Rei Militaris," by the Roman general Vegetius

    PEACE 😷

    >>In the era of tanks and planes, it is hard to see how Libertarianism can fund or field central government units for mechanized warfare.<<

    There is a lot of libertarian science fiction written about this subject. One book, which came out int he 1960s, envisions a conquered USA by the USSR where a tiny band of rebels gets control of a nuclear missile complex. Game over.

    North Korea illustrates what a small nation can do with a very minimal WMD deterrent capability.

    Which is why the major powers are hell bent on keeping those out of small nations or places with feudal style leaders. Or anywhere, really, other than "them that gots" already.

    Modern libertarian style nations need to avoid becoming "pirate havens" as some libertarians envision. Harboring widely reviled and hated criminal behavior is one thing to avoid for libertarians of all stripes. The Silk Road fiasco proved that even virtual communities need to keep from making themselves targets. Pirate havens are historically unpopular and unsuccessful in the long run.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Saddam: doesn't have nukes. Gets assaulted by two administrations, ejected by a third on fake pretenses, and in the end, is hanged by angry sectarians.

    Gaddafi: trusts us and gives up his nuclear ambitions in exchange for an implicit understanding with us. Gets betrayed by the next administration and sodomized in a ditch.

    North Korea: doesn't trust us, continues on with the nuclear program, sanctions be damned. Gets mean portrayals in Hollywood movies.

    Iran takes notes and draws logical conclusion: the nuclear program is an indispensable diplomatic bargaining chip that you should never, ever give up. Additionally, they also conclude that American words mean nothing, whether they are threats or promises. Just look at what happened to Mubarak: and he was our ally for 30 years. If he couldn't trust DC in the end, why would you when you've been sworn enemies all that time? Or what happened to Assad: he decided he wasn't going anywhere and he stood a reasonably good chance between Russian/Iranian backing and the incompetence of Washington in pursuing beefs not even remotely related to our national interests, and he hasn't.

    You don't need approval from the "experts" to figure this one out.

  81. @Muggles
    >>But every critic of libertarianism has his own personal-liberty ax to grind. Particularly egregious are “rights” to abortion and third-party reproduction, neither of which can be defended by any honest libertarian, as they are crimes with victims, not rights.<<

    As do you, grinding your own ax. Real libertarians seldom agree 100% with other libertarians on everything. For one thing, they think for themselves. Not every human action can be put through some "libertarian thought grinder" and come out identically.

    Some hard core libertarian intellectuals, most, support legal abortion. Though most don't champion people doing it. Others disagree. I'm not sure what third-party reproduction actually is supposed to be, so hard to judge. If you mean surrogacy, then most would I believe support that.

    This capacity for honest disagreement over issues is a strong point of the libertarian tendency. It isn't a dogma or religion that can be spelled out in detail and nailed to the cathedral door. Also, and very important, many libertarian policy solutions need fairly widespread acceptance before they will work as intended. Much of that is cultural and sociological. Some are attracted to libertarian ideas because they think it is a "no rules" kind of society notion. In truth, it requires a high degree of voluntary cooperation and social norming. It takes education and voluntary agreement.

    Which is why it is not a Utopian vision as some critics claim, Straw Man style. It can't be imposed from the top. Some people will prefer more authoritarianism than others. De-centralism is thus a necessary precondition to "more libertarianism" in society. With the Pandemic, we learn very clearly that there is a marked difference in Blue vs. Red, urban vs. rural, sheep vs. goats.

    The Comrades in the national media barking forums were all demanding "national" rules, but had no actual logical rationale for that. Their instincts are to centralize and control. Federalize. Statewide edicts at the very least. In more libertarian areas, local authorities and even law enforcement resists that. I think the Pandemic is a "learning opportunity" for all who think for themselves. There is LA and NYC and Texas and Florida. Kansas and New Jersey. Thank goodness.

    In truth, it requires a high degree of voluntary cooperation and social norming.

    What do you propose to do with those who choose not to voluntarily cooperate?

    By social norming I presume you mean indoctrination?

    • Replies: @Muggles
    A "high degree of cooperation" means that most of ones community accepts libertarian values and will enforce actions of self defense against those who behave outside of those. Theft, murder, rape, assault, etc.

    As to the specifics, there are many examples already extant or historical ones. In fact most American communities rely on voluntary behavior and citizen support, not patrolling the streets with government police holding nightsticks. "Vigilantism" is the ultimate sanction for behavior which violates those values. Most libertarians theorize that enforcing rules against actual criminal behavior will not greatly differ from what most experience now. However today we have far more rules designed to collect fines or enforce laws against non criminal acts.

    This is a vast subject and this is not the forum to debate utopian theories. Most libertarians are for a minimal State (the "night watchman state") while others believe no coercive State is a possible future arrangement. As a practical matter pure anarchism is a long way off, since State alternatives require a deep consensus.

    No, social norming isn't "indoctrination" any more than any other culturally accepted rules of the road. In the past, with smaller communities limited by travel difficulties, small populations, scant communication, social norms governed most American locales. To a greater degree than today.

    However some of it is cultural. Asia has higher social norms than does America. Much of that is cultural tradition, upbringing, education, etc. One doesn't get "indoctrinated" to not litter or throw garbage out on the street. High social norming is a result of a high sense of community. Sometimes found more often in places that might be considered backward. Usually also homogenous.

    With enhanced communication (say, cell phones/cameras) increasing new forms of social norming are already probably happening, as new technology substitutes for face-to-face interactions. Again, a subject for deep sociological and anthropological discussion/research, not in this comment. There are always outliers and deranged, or evil people. In every society. How to live decently despite that is the real issue. Do we need Kim Jong Un or Ron Paul as our model?
  82. @Muggles
    >>But every critic of libertarianism has his own personal-liberty ax to grind. Particularly egregious are “rights” to abortion and third-party reproduction, neither of which can be defended by any honest libertarian, as they are crimes with victims, not rights.<<

    As do you, grinding your own ax. Real libertarians seldom agree 100% with other libertarians on everything. For one thing, they think for themselves. Not every human action can be put through some "libertarian thought grinder" and come out identically.

    Some hard core libertarian intellectuals, most, support legal abortion. Though most don't champion people doing it. Others disagree. I'm not sure what third-party reproduction actually is supposed to be, so hard to judge. If you mean surrogacy, then most would I believe support that.

    This capacity for honest disagreement over issues is a strong point of the libertarian tendency. It isn't a dogma or religion that can be spelled out in detail and nailed to the cathedral door. Also, and very important, many libertarian policy solutions need fairly widespread acceptance before they will work as intended. Much of that is cultural and sociological. Some are attracted to libertarian ideas because they think it is a "no rules" kind of society notion. In truth, it requires a high degree of voluntary cooperation and social norming. It takes education and voluntary agreement.

    Which is why it is not a Utopian vision as some critics claim, Straw Man style. It can't be imposed from the top. Some people will prefer more authoritarianism than others. De-centralism is thus a necessary precondition to "more libertarianism" in society. With the Pandemic, we learn very clearly that there is a marked difference in Blue vs. Red, urban vs. rural, sheep vs. goats.

    The Comrades in the national media barking forums were all demanding "national" rules, but had no actual logical rationale for that. Their instincts are to centralize and control. Federalize. Statewide edicts at the very least. In more libertarian areas, local authorities and even law enforcement resists that. I think the Pandemic is a "learning opportunity" for all who think for themselves. There is LA and NYC and Texas and Florida. Kansas and New Jersey. Thank goodness.

    Some hard core libertarian intellectuals, most, support legal abortion.

    Terms like libertarian, liberal, conservative, populist, and the like make sense as adjectives, not as nouns. This is where much analysis gets in trouble.

    I haven’t kept up with polls, but for decades they suggested a consistent third or so self-described libertarians opposed legal abortion outright, as a violation of their underlying principle. Many of the rest were slow to call it a right, opposing criminalizination for more practical reasons, eg, definition, enforcement…

    Even the remainder who do support its legality on the basis of self-ownership are forced to admit the other side has valid points that must be addressed.

    Compare this to the infantile stance of feminists. Why should we take their demands for liberty seriously on this one issue, when they have no respect for it anywhere else?

  83. @dfordoom

    The corona virus is bringing Americans together. Millions can see for themselves that we are in very bad shape as a nation. For me, it has pushed me over the edge. I did not fully realize just how bad it is. Optimism has been extinguished. I see no way forward.
     
    It's certainly brought the dangers of politicising every single aspect of life into sharp relief. I've been shocked by the willingness of so many to see a public health problem purely in terms of political advantage. And both the "left" and the "right" have been equally guilty.

    And the degree of governmental incompetence that this has revealed in countries like the US has been staggering and demoralising. Third World nations have handled this situation better than the US.

    It's also been a weird experience seeing governments that I'd dismissed as packs of gibbering lefty nutjobs (such as the current New Zealand government) handling the situation calmly and efficiently, with an actual coherent plan that has clearly worked.

    the dangers of politicising every single aspect of life into sharp relief.

    You have written this like you think it is a bad thing.

    with an actual coherent plan that has clearly worked.

    I think that it is way too early to make this statement.

  84. @Ris_Eruwaedhiel
    I think that you are 100% correct. We are in a low-level civil war right now that will only get worse. Not like the War Between the States, but The Troubles in Northern Ireland - bombings, sabotage, kidnappings, assassinations, etc. 2032 seems to be Year Zero when the US gets a new form of government (according to Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics) or a possible breakup or both.

    Normies imagine that a Redstan America would be multi-racial, multi-religious, etc., but united by a common set of values and love for the Constitution. I don't think so. It'll be more like the US of the 1950s - overwhelmingly White and culturally Christian. In various ways, using both the law and financial subsidies, an attempt will be made to raise the moral tone of society and strengthen the family.

    Jews are caught between a rock and a hard place because while a Jew may or may not consider herself White, and the lefties don't, non-Whites regard them as White. Uber Whites if anything. On the other hand, a growing number of White Gentiles realize that Jews collectively constitute an aggressively hostile elite that has been in the forefront of political radicalism and cultural subversion dating back to the 19th Century. They will be unpopular in both Redstan and Bluestan. Good Whites will be in a bind, as well, because despite the fact that they are "liberal," they are still White and are hated by non-Whites for that crime.

    Bluestan, which will be populated by every race, ethnicity, religion, sex and sexual orientation on the planet will further break up as the various groups jockey for power. After all, what unites the Coalition of the Ascendant is hatred of Whites and the desire for free stuff and legal privileges. Crush Whitey and they'll turn on each other.

    “We are in a low-level civil war right now that will only get worse.”

    Some people feel that way, others not so much.

    “2032 seems to be Year Zero when the US gets a new form of government (according to Martin Armstrong of Armstrong Economics) or a possible breakup or both.”

    Alt Right leader Vox Day says 2033.

    “Normies imagine that a Redstan America would be multi-racial, multi-religious, etc., but united by a common set of values and love for the Constitution. I don’t think so.”

    Normies tend to be right on the mark. They are the future. You’re going to have to propagandize the hell out of them that our future is “overwhelmingly White and culturally Christian.”

    “On the other hand, a growing number of White Gentiles realize that Jews collectively constitute an aggressively hostile elite that has been in the forefront of political radicalism and cultural subversion dating back to the 19th Century.”

    It’s not as many white people as you think who share this position that Jews are “hostile” and who should be permanently removed from the United States.

    “Crush Whitey and they’ll turn on each other.”

    I’ll wait for the movie to come out. The bottom line is that political dissolution is an American pipe dream.

  85. @Muggles
    >>In the era of tanks and planes, it is hard to see how Libertarianism can fund or field central government units for mechanized warfare.<<

    There is a lot of libertarian science fiction written about this subject. One book, which came out int he 1960s, envisions a conquered USA by the USSR where a tiny band of rebels gets control of a nuclear missile complex. Game over.

    North Korea illustrates what a small nation can do with a very minimal WMD deterrent capability.

    Which is why the major powers are hell bent on keeping those out of small nations or places with feudal style leaders. Or anywhere, really, other than "them that gots" already.

    Modern libertarian style nations need to avoid becoming "pirate havens" as some libertarians envision. Harboring widely reviled and hated criminal behavior is one thing to avoid for libertarians of all stripes. The Silk Road fiasco proved that even virtual communities need to keep from making themselves targets. Pirate havens are historically unpopular and unsuccessful in the long run.

    Saddam: doesn’t have nukes. Gets assaulted by two administrations, ejected by a third on fake pretenses, and in the end, is hanged by angry sectarians.

    Gaddafi: trusts us and gives up his nuclear ambitions in exchange for an implicit understanding with us. Gets betrayed by the next administration and sodomized in a ditch.

    North Korea: doesn’t trust us, continues on with the nuclear program, sanctions be damned. Gets mean portrayals in Hollywood movies.

    Iran takes notes and draws logical conclusion: the nuclear program is an indispensable diplomatic bargaining chip that you should never, ever give up. Additionally, they also conclude that American words mean nothing, whether they are threats or promises. Just look at what happened to Mubarak: and he was our ally for 30 years. If he couldn’t trust DC in the end, why would you when you’ve been sworn enemies all that time? Or what happened to Assad: he decided he wasn’t going anywhere and he stood a reasonably good chance between Russian/Iranian backing and the incompetence of Washington in pursuing beefs not even remotely related to our national interests, and he hasn’t.

    You don’t need approval from the “experts” to figure this one out.

  86. @anon
    Never underestimate the power of the HR Department.

    Yes, for example Trotsky was easily displaced in the 1920's because Stalin had hand-picked all of his subordinates, and their subordinates. Trotsky's power base in the Red Army eroded away one man at a time, and he never really noticed.

    Stalin was an extra evil version of Catbert.

    Trotsky did not have an iota of Stalin’s practical political skills, and also spectacularly failed to resonate with the rank and file of the party.

  87. anon[235] • Disclaimer says:
    @Alexander Turok
    You obviously have no idea what a "non sequitur" is, but think you get smart boy points every time you use the phrase.

    You obviously have no idea what a “non sequitur” is, but think you get smart boy points every time you use the phrase.

    Let’s recall your original troll:

    Why haven’t Redstan America’s governments cut off the subsidies to higher ed in their states?

    A remarkably ignorant and foolish question.

    I am sure that stating an obvious fact regarding US State-funded uni’s in no way says anything about Federal agricultural policy – the second thing does not follow from the first. Raging about farm subsidies after raging about higher ed is a non-sequitur.

    “Smart boy points” – lol – I wonder, are you one of Vox Day’s fanboys, or are you one of the bitter trolls who got banned from his site? Either way it is self evident you are trolling here, looking for flames and clicks on your site. Not an actual good-faith discussion.

    Alexander Trollok – lol.

    Value added PS: It isn’t at all clear how many private uni’s will survive the next year in the US. Helicopter parents are going to demand absolute safety for their “kids”, and that is something no college can provide – due diligence, yes, safety? Nah. If many or most of the small (3,000 students) liberal arts colleges across the US wind up closing that will be another “Libertarian moment” – not. Because the survivors will be State-funded or privates with massive endowments such as Harvard. The “ends against the middle” yet again.

  88. @dfordoom

    In truth, it requires a high degree of voluntary cooperation and social norming.
     
    What do you propose to do with those who choose not to voluntarily cooperate?

    By social norming I presume you mean indoctrination?

    A “high degree of cooperation” means that most of ones community accepts libertarian values and will enforce actions of self defense against those who behave outside of those. Theft, murder, rape, assault, etc.

    As to the specifics, there are many examples already extant or historical ones. In fact most American communities rely on voluntary behavior and citizen support, not patrolling the streets with government police holding nightsticks. “Vigilantism” is the ultimate sanction for behavior which violates those values. Most libertarians theorize that enforcing rules against actual criminal behavior will not greatly differ from what most experience now. However today we have far more rules designed to collect fines or enforce laws against non criminal acts.

    This is a vast subject and this is not the forum to debate utopian theories. Most libertarians are for a minimal State (the “night watchman state”) while others believe no coercive State is a possible future arrangement. As a practical matter pure anarchism is a long way off, since State alternatives require a deep consensus.

    No, social norming isn’t “indoctrination” any more than any other culturally accepted rules of the road. In the past, with smaller communities limited by travel difficulties, small populations, scant communication, social norms governed most American locales. To a greater degree than today.

    However some of it is cultural. Asia has higher social norms than does America. Much of that is cultural tradition, upbringing, education, etc. One doesn’t get “indoctrinated” to not litter or throw garbage out on the street. High social norming is a result of a high sense of community. Sometimes found more often in places that might be considered backward. Usually also homogenous.

    With enhanced communication (say, cell phones/cameras) increasing new forms of social norming are already probably happening, as new technology substitutes for face-to-face interactions. Again, a subject for deep sociological and anthropological discussion/research, not in this comment. There are always outliers and deranged, or evil people. In every society. How to live decently despite that is the real issue. Do we need Kim Jong Un or Ron Paul as our model?

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    A “high degree of cooperation” means that most of ones community accepts libertarian values
     
    Your first problem is that very very few people accept libertarian values.

    Your second problem is, what do you do with the people in your community who do not accept libertarian values?

    Libertarianism might work for tiny rural communities (it probably wouldn't work even in such communities but I guess it's just possible that it might work on a microscopic scale). It's not going to work for any other kind of society. So what purpose does libertarianism serve?
  89. @Muggles
    A "high degree of cooperation" means that most of ones community accepts libertarian values and will enforce actions of self defense against those who behave outside of those. Theft, murder, rape, assault, etc.

    As to the specifics, there are many examples already extant or historical ones. In fact most American communities rely on voluntary behavior and citizen support, not patrolling the streets with government police holding nightsticks. "Vigilantism" is the ultimate sanction for behavior which violates those values. Most libertarians theorize that enforcing rules against actual criminal behavior will not greatly differ from what most experience now. However today we have far more rules designed to collect fines or enforce laws against non criminal acts.

    This is a vast subject and this is not the forum to debate utopian theories. Most libertarians are for a minimal State (the "night watchman state") while others believe no coercive State is a possible future arrangement. As a practical matter pure anarchism is a long way off, since State alternatives require a deep consensus.

    No, social norming isn't "indoctrination" any more than any other culturally accepted rules of the road. In the past, with smaller communities limited by travel difficulties, small populations, scant communication, social norms governed most American locales. To a greater degree than today.

    However some of it is cultural. Asia has higher social norms than does America. Much of that is cultural tradition, upbringing, education, etc. One doesn't get "indoctrinated" to not litter or throw garbage out on the street. High social norming is a result of a high sense of community. Sometimes found more often in places that might be considered backward. Usually also homogenous.

    With enhanced communication (say, cell phones/cameras) increasing new forms of social norming are already probably happening, as new technology substitutes for face-to-face interactions. Again, a subject for deep sociological and anthropological discussion/research, not in this comment. There are always outliers and deranged, or evil people. In every society. How to live decently despite that is the real issue. Do we need Kim Jong Un or Ron Paul as our model?

    A “high degree of cooperation” means that most of ones community accepts libertarian values

    Your first problem is that very very few people accept libertarian values.

    Your second problem is, what do you do with the people in your community who do not accept libertarian values?

    Libertarianism might work for tiny rural communities (it probably wouldn’t work even in such communities but I guess it’s just possible that it might work on a microscopic scale). It’s not going to work for any other kind of society. So what purpose does libertarianism serve?

    • Replies: @paranoid goy

    Libertarianism might work for tiny rural communities
     
    Small rural communities are the embodiment of conservatism, which is the Zionist opposite of liberalism. If you look up the true meaning of socialism, you may find your utterances make more sense, if you replace "libralism' with 'socialism'. Tight-knit communities are socialist, which is why Zion has spent gazillions teaching you to conflate socialism with communism and liberalism, the two most despicable anti-humanist religions of mordern times. Now everybody hates socialism, while begging for the Bolshevics to come save us from the libertarian disaster they created. Patriotism, socialism, national pride, anarchy, the greatest fear of, and only weapon against the anarchists in the boardrooms.
    Yes, that's right, there is a world of difference between Anarchy and Anarchism, the one defies the Hierarchy, the other is an ...ism.
  90. @Audacious Epigone
    It's fun when online handles fit like a glove.

    Had to look up “epigone” when I first came across you. Har har. Thank goodness for dictionaries, the plot sucks, but at least they explain every word nicely…
    Protocol 1 para. 1 sentence 1: “…let us consider carefully the meaning of words…”
    But you knew that.

  91. @dfordoom

    A “high degree of cooperation” means that most of ones community accepts libertarian values
     
    Your first problem is that very very few people accept libertarian values.

    Your second problem is, what do you do with the people in your community who do not accept libertarian values?

    Libertarianism might work for tiny rural communities (it probably wouldn't work even in such communities but I guess it's just possible that it might work on a microscopic scale). It's not going to work for any other kind of society. So what purpose does libertarianism serve?

    Libertarianism might work for tiny rural communities

    Small rural communities are the embodiment of conservatism, which is the Zionist opposite of liberalism. If you look up the true meaning of socialism, you may find your utterances make more sense, if you replace “libralism’ with ‘socialism’. Tight-knit communities are socialist, which is why Zion has spent gazillions teaching you to conflate socialism with communism and liberalism, the two most despicable anti-humanist religions of mordern times. Now everybody hates socialism, while begging for the Bolshevics to come save us from the libertarian disaster they created. Patriotism, socialism, national pride, anarchy, the greatest fear of, and only weapon against the anarchists in the boardrooms.
    Yes, that’s right, there is a world of difference between Anarchy and Anarchism, the one defies the Hierarchy, the other is an …ism.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS