Why Libertarians Are Hopeless • Christopher Cantwell

The connotation of "benevolent dictator" is off putting to most people. I think the implication is more like George Washington. A mostly virtuous/benevolent man who lead and was able to attain power. His greatest act was the peaceful transition and relinquishing his seat.

Historically they seem to come from the military or with the support of the military. People think of a tyrant but we need a philosopher king. Not in the monarchist sense. The choices are reform the culture and by extension the government and cultivate that person. The other option is to find that person and support them.

It seems hopeless because no one has risen to the task but the future is an unknown. The worst that can happen is humanity goes through another tyrant only to eventually tear them down. People will want true freedom not comfort again.

As far as the rabbits go and r/k selection theory (I keep picturing "Watership Down" everytime that comes up) we are not rabbits. In humans when this theory is applied we need to remember that we can be both r's and k's depending on the environment (not to be taken in some Marxist sense).

Ugh even I cant stomach my own post above. I think you are right greencmp we are doomed! The only option is to find religion if you have not already haha. Seriously though it is beginning to look like we are being herded towards a certain outcome. We can choose a left dictatorship or a right. Best we can hope for is to survive the persecutions and subsequent crash that results.

a reply to: NihilistSanta

Most humans are K. Most people want K societies. The elites are want us to be more r because r types are easier to control,indoctrinate and coerce.

Yes the psychopath/sociopath predatory class is r pretending to be k to feed on them like a parasite.It is like what mark passio said about power imbalence and authoritarianism. K's have an advantage over R's in an authoritarian expliotive system. It is in the best interrest of the TPTB that we be more r than k. More right brained imbalanced.

a reply to: greencmp

This entire article is indeed an excellent insight into why libertarians are hopeless. Let me give you some excerpts as examples:

If people began behaving rationally, tomorrow we would live in a world where the word libertarian was synonymous with the word human.

the entire time we scratch our heads in bewilderment as to why our fellow human beings, and even our purported fellow libertarians, appear impervious to reason.

Rather than blame others for their irrationality, we blame our lack of capacity for convincing others, and work to better ourselves.

But the libertarian too, exercises a great deal of irrationality in doing so. It is as if he were trying to teach a dog to speak Japanese, and then condemning himself for a lack of teaching skills, when the creature simply lacked the biological capacity to learn such a skill.

The rest descends from there into the expected further dehumanization of non-libertarians, and advocacy of violent social darwinism. He comes to the predictable conclusion that oh, democracy doesn't work.

Why doesn't democracy work? Well because people disagree with him. The solution to this problem? Violence, of course. The same thing he says libertarianism is against, but, well...

Simply put, the only way to bring about the abolition of the State apparatus is a violent overthrow of said apparatus, followed in short order by a culture of resistance preventing the establishment of such an institution in the future. The passive nature of the rodent class which occupies the libertarian space at present forbids such violence, and certainly lacks both the mental and physical capacity to take on the wolf in so much as a single non-democratic contest, much less a violent and protracted one.

This is what seems to pass for libertarian philosophical thought. It';s a movement of people who talk about having a problem with "The state," but whose only problem with the state is that they're not the ones in charge of it. Libertarians seem to desperately desire control over the very organizational model they so despise. In order to - of course - stamp out, crush, purge, and otherwise do away with competing thought. As we see up and down in this article where he rails about the "corruption of libertarinism." Absolute purity of thought. Fundamentalist, static, dogmatic philosophy. An ever-ongoing "refinement" that necessitates the purging of notions or ideas that are not absolutely devoted to a perceived core of purity.

The whole time, blaming the "outside" we irrational, mindless subhumans, for the failures of libertarianism as a philosophy.

The troubling thing is, the author almost gets it. He brushes up against the evolutionary psychology of how humans order themselves, But rather than examining this reality and addressing the incompatibility of his form of libertarianism with it, as a way to improve his philosophy, he outright rejects it. Instead he argues that his philosophy is perfect and flawless, that he himself is some sort of "higher order" - übermensch, if you will - and it's the rest of the worldwho is in the wrong.

If this were a movie, he'd then lock himself in a basement for a week or two before terrorizing the local village with his monstrous creation.

If this article is an example of modern libertarian thought, then the movement is nothing more than a collection of frustrated fascists.

a reply to: TheTengriist

I read an article on a site I can not link to here but would be glad to do so in PM. It hit on this same topic only it went a step further to recognize that libertarianism now is a tent term. It is a collection of people disenfranchised from other groups who have rallied behind libertarianism either as a stepping stone to nationalism or to use the state to further some other goal. Environmental, tax based, race based, etc many groups claiming they are libertarians. In essence most of these people are not libertarians but are statist.

I just feel libertarianism is idealism. It cant truly survive against statist systems. It needs this kind of "liberty loving" environment that doesn't exist in the present. Not to say it is void of any use. Its the natural state so to say but we no longer live in a natural state. I see many on the alt+right that started libertarian but are more nationalist at this point. I authored another thread that touched on this some as I see a sort of manufactured or cultivated clash coming.

a reply to: greencmp

Maybe something along the lines of Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix who was appointed dictator legibus faciendis et rei publicae constituendae causa (dictator for the making of laws and for the settling of the constitution).

A chance to hit the reset button so to speak and start from the beginning.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Exactly but he had an army. This is where the hopelessness comes in from the OP article as well. Cantwell sees that they would have to abandon their code of non-agression in order to achieve that and then its still a gamble as to whether you get a coup based on reform, a civil war , or the dreaded tyranny.

originally posted by: TheTengriist
a reply to: greencmp

This entire article is indeed an excellent insight into why libertarians are hopeless. Let me give you some excerpts as examples:

If people began behaving rationally, tomorrow we would live in a world where the word libertarian was synonymous with the word human.

the entire time we scratch our heads in bewilderment as to why our fellow human beings, and even our purported fellow libertarians, appear impervious to reason.

Rather than blame others for their irrationality, we blame our lack of capacity for convincing others, and work to better ourselves.

But the libertarian too, exercises a great deal of irrationality in doing so. It is as if he were trying to teach a dog to speak Japanese, and then condemning himself for a lack of teaching skills, when the creature simply lacked the biological capacity to learn such a skill.

The rest descends from there into the expected further dehumanization of non-libertarians, and advocacy of violent social darwinism. He comes to the predictable conclusion that oh, democracy doesn't work.

Why doesn't democracy work? Well because people disagree with him. The solution to this problem? Violence, of course. The same thing he says libertarianism is against, but, well...

Simply put, the only way to bring about the abolition of the State apparatus is a violent overthrow of said apparatus, followed in short order by a culture of resistance preventing the establishment of such an institution in the future. The passive nature of the rodent class which occupies the libertarian space at present forbids such violence, and certainly lacks both the mental and physical capacity to take on the wolf in so much as a single non-democratic contest, much less a violent and protracted one.

This is what seems to pass for libertarian philosophical thought. It';s a movement of people who talk about having a problem with "The state,"statism uncontrolled is dangerous but whose only problem with the state is that they're not the ones in charge of it. Libertarians seem to desperately desire controlwrong over the very organizational model they so despise. In order to - of course - stamp out, crush, purge, and otherwise do away with competing thought.lol wrong again As we see up and down in this article where he rails about the "corruption of libertarinism." Absolute purity of thought.what? Fundamentalist,??? static,actually libertarianism is progressive anti-statism dogmatic philosophynot really. An ever-ongoing "refinement" that necessitates the purging of notions or ideas that are not absolutely devoted to a perceived core of purity.sure...if you say so.

The whole time, blaming the "outside" we irrational, mindless subhumans, for the failures of libertarianism as a philosophy. We do not blame the "outside". I don't call non-libertarians subhumans

The troubling thing is, the author almost gets it. He brushes up against the evolutionary psychology of how humans order themselves, But rather than examining this reality and addressing the incompatibility of his form of libertarianismWhat form is that? statist apologist with it, as a way to improve his philosophy, he outright rejects it. Instead he argues that his philosophy is perfect and flawless,and statism is? lol that he himself is some sort of "higher order"political insecurity - übermensch, if you will - and it's the rest of the worldwho is in the wrong.
Spoken like a true statist apologist
If this were a movie, he'd then lock himself in a basement for a week or two before terrorizing the local village with his monstrous creation.
violence and coercion.
If this article is an example of modern libertarian thought, then the movement is nothing more than a collection of frustrated fascists.

pro-Statist Stockholm syndrome.

You have no idea what real libertarianism is. Try again.

Maybe this is where Abraham left Ur.

I have always been disappointed that no book ends with a new libertarian state or geographical region.

A libertarian mega media hit movie with books and hit records is the only salvation.

Back in the 70's some folks thought Star Wars could do that.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Maybe this is where Abraham left Ur.

I have always been disappointed that no book ends with a new libertarian state or geographical region.

A libertarian mega media hit movie with books and hit records is the only salvation.

Back in the 70's some folks thought Star Wars could do that.

I think Atlas Shrugged ended like that

Duh

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: TheTengriist

I read an article on a site I can not link to here but would be glad to do so in PM. It hit on this same topic only it went a step further to recognize that libertarianism now is a tent term. It is a collection of people disenfranchised from other groups who have rallied behind libertarianism either as a stepping stone to nationalism or to use the state to further some other goal. Environmental, tax based, race based, etc many groups claiming they are libertarians. In essence most of these people are not libertarians but are statist.

I just feel libertarianism is idealism. It cant truly survive against statist systems. It needs this kind of "liberty loving" environment that doesn't exist in the present. Not to say it is void of any use. Its the natural state so to say but we no longer live in a natural state. I see many on the alt+right that started libertarian but are more nationalist at this point. I authored another thread that touched on this some as I see a sort of manufactured or cultivated clash coming.

Like economists, libertarians are grave and grotesque heruspex.

Unwelcome advisors to unrealistic, dysfunctional and delusional electorates.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: greencmp

Maybe something along the lines of Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix who was appointed dictator legibus faciendis et rei publicae constituendae causa (dictator for the making of laws and for the settling of the constitution).

A chance to hit the reset button so to speak and start from the beginning.

Very interesting badass general.

It seems though that he set the precedent for Caesar so the reforms were not long lasting.

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Exactly but he had an army. This is where the hopelessness comes in from the OP article as well. Cantwell sees that they would have to abandon their code of non-agression in order to achieve that and then its still a gamble as to whether you get a coup based on reform, a civil war , or the dreaded tyranny.

I'm of the mind that priority dictates the political participation of the apolitcal class. The really silent majority.

If only to give the constitution every possible opportunity to shine in times of distress which is its actual purpose.

Who's the Coolidge? is it Johnson? Can he win?

Is Cruz the best we can hope for at this point?

originally posted by: TheTengriist
But rather than examining this reality and addressing the incompatibility of his form of libertarianism with it, as a way to improve his philosophy, he outright rejects it. Instead he argues that his philosophy is perfect and flawless, that he himself is some sort of "higher order" - übermensch, if you will - and it's the rest of the worldwho is in the wrong.

If this were a movie, he'd then lock himself in a basement for a week or two before terrorizing the local village with his monstrous creation.

If this article is an example of modern libertarian thought, then the movement is nothing more than a collection of frustrated fascists.

Philosophically, libertarians are not advocates of coercive superorganizations. Libertarians advise against awarding monopoly power, they do not seek to acquire and control it but, the exact opposite.

What is disturbing about this piece is that he is accepting the postulate presented, not that he is rejecting it.

You should read that again and check out the r/K selection series.

a reply to: greencmp

Libertarians have a tough sell to people that are apolitical. We do a terrible job differentiating ourselves from RepubliCorp Ltd and DemoCrook LLLP. Democrooks offer free stuff from the tax payer to wallstreet investment firms/banks and decree marxist carbon taxes on the general population for the 0.001%. RepubliCorp offers tax breaks for wallstreet banks/investors/Big oil/Big War contractor and insider deals them.

What can we offer big business and war contractors? Less wars and no corporate income taxes?

The left authoritarians love their abortion and charitable services(libertarians can do better if allowed to).
The Right authoritarians love their anti-immigration and gun rights(libertarians can do better here also. We are pro-gun too)

The biggest difference between authoritarians and libertarians...

Libertarians

-NAP
-against the monopoly of force/violence
-pro-individual power over state power.
-against rulers but not rules or social organization
-against coercion,exploitation(theft) and threats of violence
-We allow you to live the way you like and not try to "manage" you or change you. We are not the Borg.

Authoritarians

-Libido dominandi(Might is right. Weak is wrong.)
-for the monopoly of force/violence
-pro-state power over individual power.
-for rulers. Most of the time many rulers.
-for coercion,exploitation(theft), and threats of violence.
-They love steam rolling their authoritarian ideals on others(via force or threats of force) Like the Borg. Be assimilated or be destroyed.Individuality and true self expression is irrelevant.

How are you going to sell freedom to people that don't even know they are enslaved? That is why the media is constantly trying to put the public into a fear based survival mind state all the time.

originally posted by: John_Rodger_Cornman
a reply to: greencmp

Libertarians have a tough sell to people that are apolitical. We do a terrible job differentiating ourselves from RepubliCorp Ltd and DemoCrook LLLP. Democrooks offer free stuff from the tax payer to wallstreet investment firms/banks and decree marxist carbon taxes on the general population for the 0.001%. RepubliCorp offers tax breaks for wallstreet banks/investors/Big oil/Big War contractor and insider deals them.

What can we offer big business and war contractors? Less wars and no corporate income taxes?

The left authoritarians love their abortion and charitable services(libertarians can do better if allowed to).
The Right authoritarians love their anti-immigration and gun rights(libertarians can do better here also. We are pro-gun too)

The biggest difference between authoritarians and libertarians...

Libertarians

-NAP
-against the monopoly of force/violence
-pro-individual power over state power.
-against rulers but not rules or social organization
-against coercion,exploitation(theft) and threats of violence
-We allow you to live the way you like and not try to "manage" you or change you. We are not the Borg.

Authoritarians

-Libido dominandi(Might is right. Weak is wrong.)
-for the monopoly of force/violence
-pro-state power over individual power.
-for rulers. Most of the time many rulers.
-for coercion,exploitation(theft), and threats of violence.
-They love steam rolling their authoritarian ideals on others(via force or threats of force) Like the Borg. Be assimilated or be destroyed.Individuality and true self expression is irrelevant.

How are you going to sell freedom to people that don't even know they are enslaved? That is why the media is constantly trying to put the public into a fear based survival mind state all the time.

I think there is beginning to be a wider recognition of the value of minimal government. If there is to be a unifying principal, it ought to be that.

Reinforcing that realization and actually cutting the scope, size and authority of government will breathe life into the economy directly benefitting everybody.

a reply to: greencmp

Unlike most other AnCap I don't think we'll get there in one swoop. You have to do it in phases like the Fabian socialists do it. The left has a better strategy to implement their ideology than we do our ideology. Collectivism as history has shown us is extremely dangerous if combined with statism. Capitalism is less dangerous but still exploitative and rewards sociopathy.

Conventional statist(pro-statist)---->Libertarianism(anti-statist)---->Minarchism(anti-statist)--->Anarchism(anti-statist)

originally posted by: NihilistSanta
Exactly but he had an army. This is where the hopelessness comes in from the OP article as well. Cantwell sees that they would have to abandon their code of non-agression in order to achieve that and then its still a gamble as to whether you get a coup based on reform, a civil war , or the dreaded tyranny.

Sulla did in fact step down and while I agree, his was an anomalous situation, the example is there that it can occur.

originally posted by: greencmp
Very interesting badass general.

It seems though that he set the precedent for Caesar so the reforms were not long lasting.

Caesar and the Emperors sadly did not follow the example set by Sulla and acquired and retained more powers then he had during his brief reign as Dictator.

Trump has money and his own publicity. That could be equivalent to an army, transposing power from Classical Rome to our time.

If the pattern holds true, the next Caesar will be a movie star, rock star, or athlete. Most likely a movie star that testifies as an expert witness to Congress about Human Caused Global Whatever. Leonardo DiCaprio come to mind. Obama reputedly got the necessary attention from one speech in 2004. So any body could be there in 2020.