It’s the new movement full of realistic, moderate people advancing an ideology that recognizes the rich context of world affairs. (WARNING: Lots of inside references)
- You can see the same content that’s on tumblr… on facebook!
RE: The Limits of Libertarianism
Response to this:
"By denigrating several of the signal achievements of modern American society, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act, Rand Paul has performed a useful service for voters who are angry at their elected officials. He has helped to illuminate the limits and the hazards of antigovernment sentiment."
- Wrong, Jim Crow Laws were laws imposed by the government. Someone who opposes all government except for “night watchman” duties also opposes Jim Crow laws. This is incredibly simple. Rand Paul happens to have something that ultra-statist of today lack: CONSISTENCY. Now he’s still horribly inconsistent by my standards by supporting government monopolies on law, the military, borders, and I’m sure there are other things Rand Paul supports that would make me oppose him. But compared to mainstream politicos - which is to say pro-democracy hacks of various shades - he is the near-pinnacle of ideological purity.
"Many Americans are sputtering mad, believing that government has let them down in abetting a ruinous recession, bailing out bankers and spending wildly. But is Rand Paul really the remedy they had in mind? His views and those of other Tea Party candidates are unintentional reminders of the importance of enlightened government."
- Nope. “Government” (a term I don’t like being used and which I, in loose talk, am also guilty of using to mean “state”) was responsible for the Jim Crow Laws, was responsible for the business cycle AS WE KNOW IT, and is obviously responsible for the bailouts - which will only sustain the malinvestments, making the market take longer to clear and prolong the recession. Sorry, all of the headline problems of today are caused by the state.
"In a handful of remarkably candid interviews since winning Kentucky’s Republican Senate primary this week, Mr. Paul made it clear that he does not understand the nature of racial progress in this country."
No, he made it clear he doesn’t agree with the New York Times Editorial view of history. Also, I’m not so sure “racial progress” is even something to be strived for. Sounds like a euphemism for big taxes and training white people to feel bad for actions done by the state that they had no control over.
"As a longtime libertarian, he espouses the view that personal freedom should supersede all government intervention. Neighborhood associations should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, he has written, and private businesses ought to be able to refuse service to anyone they wish. Under this philosophy, the punishment for a lunch counter that refuses to seat black customers would be public shunning, not a court order."
Right, that’s the whole point of ownership: exclusion. The whole point of owning a house or a car is that you get to choose who can use it… and who cannot. The whole point of ownership is EXCLUSION. Without exclusion, there is no ownership.
"It is a theory of liberty with roots in America’s creation, but the succeeding centuries have shown how ineffective it was in promoting a civil society. The freedom of a few people to discriminate meant generations of less freedom for large groups of others."
I’m sorry, but I believe Rand Paul would have opposed state laws which prevented blacks from becoming skiled laborers and which kept blacks out of certain jobs and government places.
A free market promotes multiculturalism, as firms pay a price by limiting the customer and labor pools. Firms in the former confederate states could not keep out blacks on a free market, that’s why they needed laws to go against the market. The market tends toward integration into ever larger and beautiful and powerful structures of production that allow man to focus on higher and higher things. To blame the segregation not on the obvious segregation laws but on the only force in the south that was working against it: the market - is to fail to understand reality itself.
"It was only government power that ended slavery and abolished Jim Crow, neither of which would have been eliminated by a purely free market."
Slavery was sustained by fugitive slave laws. The slave states had to conscript slave patrols to catch runaway slaves (at taxpayer expense). And the Jim Crow laws are obvious.
"It was government that rescued the economy from the Depression and promoted safety and equality in the workplace."
Institutional BS. There was a dip in the US stock market which was actually larger as a percentage in 1919 than the one in 1929. But in 1919 the US Government was not powerful enough to intervene because Woodrow Wilson had a series of strokes which made the government ineffectual, and so there was no intervention and thus the recession passed in a year.
In 1929 Hoover met with business to force up wages and to keep investments in place and the Fed was constantly expanding credit. Roosevelt came along and expanded on Hoover’s policies, despite promising in the campaign to go in a more free market direction. The result was the worst depression in US history.
"Republicans in Washington have breathlessly distanced themselves from Mr. Paul’s remarks, afraid that voters might tar them with the same extremist brush."
Right, Republicans are pieces of shit and totally unprincipled. Like you.
"But as they continue to fight the new health care law and oppose greater financial regulation, claiming the federal government is overstepping its bounds, they should notice that the distance is closing."
Whenever there is a financial crisis the remedy is always more controls, which are promised to prevent future crisis. But then another crisis comes that’s even worse.
Same with the healthcare problems. Two industries that are in straighjackets by the state: healthcare and financials, happen to be two of the most unstable. To lbiertarians it’s obvious: all state action is necessarily arbitrary (that’s the whole point of it being state action), and the result is the chaos of the arbitrary.
Slavery and Progressivism:
Libertarianism and White Nationalism
Some may have noticed a peculiar correlation between libertarianism and white nationalism. Why would this be? And is it a sign of something malevolent on the part of libertarians? No, and a way to explain this is with prison gangs.
In prisons, whites get raped more than any other race because they lack solidarity. The only white gangs in prisons are neo-nazi and skinhead gangs, and whites are trained from a very early age to not join those gangs. Whites don’t gang-up in prison, and as a result they get ganged-up on.
In a prison, as a white guy, I would advocate white solidarity, which is to say white nationalism. Today it’s impossible, but say in the 1800s it would be possible to escape the prison. So in the prison environment, we see two completely logical actions a white inmate would take:
1. Joining a white gang in response to the black and hispanic gangs (white nationalism)
2. Escaping the prison (libertarianism)
We can even imagine the whites and blacks coming together to escape the prison.
And what is a state but a loose prison?
And when the entire planet is controlled by the state to such a degree, that is we have a prison planet, you can expect whites trying to oppose the prison and clump together to defend against their prisonmates - a parallel rise of libertarianism and white nationalism.
I would prefer that all mankind mix and understand each other.
Statism, especially democratic statism, leads to blocs and bloc-identification. Bloc A votes themselves bloc B’s money.
On a free market, bloc-identification breaks down as all men are mixed into the structure of production, there’s just no money to made in blocs. You can’t vote yourself someone else’s money, and so the only way to make money is to cooperate with your fellow men.The free market FORCES them to cooperate.
At first they do it reluctantly, but then understanding emerges.