Counter-Currents
1,210 words
Translations: Dutch, French 1, French 2, Polish, Slovak, Spanish
Author’s Note:
The following text is the talk I delivered at the London Forum on October 3, 2015. I wish to thank Jez Turner, the London Forum team, and their faithful audience for making this talk possible.
Libertarianism is the politics of individualism. Individualism is both a metaphysical and a moral position.
Metaphysical individualism is the thesis that only particular men exist. Groups are just collections of individuals, with no independent reality or meaning.
Metaphysical individualism is connected to universalism, which is the idea that there is only one race, the human race, which is just a collection of individuals. Universalism implies that there is no meaningful distinction between ingroups and outgroups, between us and them.
Universalism has two important implications.
First, since politics as Carl Schmitt defines it arises from the distinction between us and them, universalism implies that politics is merely a temporary phenomenon, based on the waning illusion of meaningful distinctions between ingroups and outgroups. When these distinctions disappear, politics will as well.
Second, nationalism, patriotism, and any other form of partiality for one’s ingroup over an outgroup is morally illegitimate, since there is really no us and them, just me and you. This leads us to the ethical dimension of individualism. How do you and I get on together? If groups are just collections of individuals, there are no group values, just individual values. The purpose of social institutions, therefore, is to facilitate individuals pursuing their own aims.
The great facilitator of individuals pursuing their aims is capitalism. If you and I have something to offer each other, we might trade. If we have nothing to offer each other, we just walk on by. The marketplace requires only a minimal “nightwatchman” state to protect us against force, fraud, breach of contract, and the like.
Ethical individualism requires us to treat individuals as individuals, not as members of various morally unimportant groups handed to us by history or nature. We must be “blind” to race. We must be “blind” to class. We must be “blind” to sex. We must be “blind” to religion. We must be “blind” to nationality. We must be “blind” to all things that divide us. The only thing we must see are individual merits.
The individualism game is highly advantageous for all players. Individualism unleashes creativity in science, technology, and business. But paradoxically, the greatest strength of individualism is the form of cooperation it fosters. Each individualist comports himself as a member of a potentially global society. This means that social cooperation can scale up to the global limit as well, making possible the wholesale transformation of the world we call modernity.
Collectivist societies, however, are hampered by ingroup/outgroup splits. If people behave as members of groups, trust and cooperation are confined to ingroups, which severely constricts the scale of social institutions and corrupts their functioning with favoritism toward ingroups and discrimination toward outgroups.
In honest contests, the individualist game can outcompete the collectivist game, which is why individualistic European societies conquered virtually the entire globe with superior technologies and forms of social cooperation.
But the competition for global domination is rarely honest. Thus when Western individualist societies conquered and absorbed collectivist ones, it was only a matter of time before the more intelligent tribes learned how to cheat.
How does one cheat an individualist? By pretending to be an individualist while working as a member of a group. You demand that individualists give you a fair shake in every transaction. But whenever possible, you give preferences to members of your own tribe, and they give preferences to you.
Imagine playing a game of cards in which your opponent can play a wild card but you can’t. That wild card is their tribal membership. It does not matter how great an advantage you might have over him in terms of chips at the start, because the rules give him a systematic advantage, and as long as you play the game, you will lose. But individualists are slow to catch on to the scam, because they are blind to groups.
It is interesting that the most important founder of modern race- and nation-blind individualism was Ayn Rand, born Alissa Rosenbaum, and the leadership of her Objectivist movement just happened to be overwhelmingly Jewish, including a number of first cousins and married couples. Obviously, this was not individualist meritocracy in action. Yet Rand’s followers were blind to this fact as a matter of high moral principle.
There will never be a libertarian society. But libertarian ideology still performs a function within the existing system. And although libertarianism is superficially opposed to the Marxism of the Frankfurt School, both are Jewish intellectual movements that perform the same function: They break down the resistance of high-trust, European individualist societies to duplicitous tribal groups—what John Robb calls “parasite tribes”—preeminently Jews. Libertarians preach individualism, whereas the Frankfurt school stigmatizes white ethnocentrism and extols “inclusiveness” toward “marginalized” groups. But the result is the same. Both doctrines promote Jewish upward mobility and collective power while blinding the rest of society to what is happening.
What kind of people preach blindness as a virtue? People who are up to no good.
Ultimately, I would argue, individualism is a product of the biological and cultural evolution of European man. Individualism goes hand in hand with low ethnocentrism, i.e., openness to strangers, the universalist idea that ultimately there is just one group, humanity, to which we all belong. The European mentality was beautifully encapsulated in a saying of Will Rogers: “A stranger is just a friend you haven’t met.” I doubt very much that an equivalent phrase can be found in Hebrew or Arabic. In other words, there is fundamentally no us and them. There is just knowledge and ignorance, friends we know and friends we don’t.
This openness is highly advantageous because it allows us to increase the number of people with whom trust and cooperation are possible. But openness to strangers is also risky, of course, because they might not reciprocate. Thus taking the risk of sociability—extending the hand of friendship—is deeply engrained in our sense of moral high-mindedness. But when we meet people who do not reciprocate our openness, but instead regard it as a weakness to be exploited, then our virtues are no longer advantageous, and if our elites persist in high-minded openness to such enemies, they must be relieved of their powers and responsibilities.
Individualism blinds its followers to collectivist cheats. Thus the only way to save individualism is to become aware of groups. But that sounds like collectivism. Once we become aware of parasite tribes, we have to exclude them. But that sounds like statism. If individualism is ultimately a European ethos, then individualism requires that we preserve European societies and exclude non-Europeans, which sounds like racial nationalism.
This is the refutation of libertarianism. It is a form of self-refutation. To save individualism, we have to repudiate universalism, reintroduce the distinction between us and them, and start acting collectively. Individualism only works as part of a collective of like-minded people who must exclude collectives that don’t play by the same rules. This is how some people start out as libertarian individualists and become racists, anti-Semites, and fascists in the end.
42 comments
Good points. Counter-Currents has been on a “good sense” roll recently, keep it up.
Individualism requires ethics and moral principles. Thus, it fails when invaded by ethnocentric tribalists. But it can also fail for other reasons – such as being exploited by fatcat capitalists and their rent-seeking behavior, to influence the political system to amass more wealth and power.
In America, a lot of the whole “individualism, libertarianism, small government” meme derives from the wealthy exploiting the natural tendencies of White Americans to favor such things, in order to establish big market capitalism, outsourcing, and mass migration. Chamber of Commerce cabals are “playing unfair” with individualism just as do, say, Jews. All this talk of “let’s make the country safe for the small businessman” really means “let’s make the country safe for the Koch brothers, let’s make the country safe for Gates and Zuckerberg, let’s ship the jobs to China and import Mexicans and Asians to do whatever jobs can’t be shipped out,.”
The morale of this story is a paradox : in order to save individualism we have to renounce it.
Yes, we cab have individualism as long as we recognize that it is not universal.
“Yes, we can have individualism as long as we recognize that it is not universal.””
One of your best lines, sir. Please expand into a paper.
Great piece. Libertarianism is where WN/Identitarians can make gains. Once libertarians realize their values are actually European values and not universal, then they are one step closer to being with us.
No audio and/or video?
I liked it, but I’d like to hear it, too.
There was no video. I will get the audio and edit it. Or I might just do a fresh audio and put it online. I would like to get into the habit of recording audio versions of all my texts, but I just don’t have enough hours in the day.
I start with this: all societies, all systems, are inherently democratic, in that they must have the consent of an overwhelming majority of a population to be what it is; whether it be fascism, Socialism, or laissez-faire. No government, no matter how tyrannical, no matter how benign, can last for long if it’s entire population no longer consents to it. This is the very basic foundation of the political dialectic, and this is where Libertarianism seems to fail. The State, contrary to Libertarian thought, does not simply exist and grow by use of violence alone. It grows by specifically targeting the ingrained weaknesses of the average person (in contrast to the person of either pronounced achievement or intelligence on one end of the spectrum, or the pronounced under-achiever or low intelligence on the other end, neither of which the State can ever seem to fully control), whatever those weaknesses may be. It may our primitive fear; or it may be the fact that most people find it more psychologically satisfying to scapegoat an institution, rather than blame themselves, for the evils of the world; or it may be down to the average person’s innate lack of being able to contextualize both time and principles in a truly meaningful way. Voltaire’s famous quote, “If God didn’t exist, it would be necessary to invent him,” applies equally well to the State, not that it’s existence is simply necessary, although it is, but that it is conditional for any society of imperfect individuals, and is a side effect of the nature of their imperfections.
“I start with this: all societies, all systems, are inherently democratic, in that they must have the consent of an overwhelming majority of a population to be what it is; whether it be fascism, Socialism, or laissez-faire.”
The Aztec’s, the Myans, the Africans under Shaka, Russians under Stalin etc all were grossly against having their hearts ripped out or speared or worked to death or sent to the Gulag, yet they did not go against their cruel and despotic rulers. Fear kept them in line. The vast majority simply go along to get along. The rulers do not have the consent; they have the silence of the terrified.
As of late, there seems to be a pretty solid backlash against the ultra-Left (especially feminists) by people who identify as “Cultural Libertarians.” The #Gamergate controversy of late 2014 centered around the video gaming community (described by some as a predominantly libertarian community) fighting back against Leftist influence over video game development and Leftist propaganda against the gaming community, and essentially winning. Youtube and radio personalities like Gavin McInnes (co-founder of VICE), Steven Crowder (Louder with Crowder), Joe Rogan, and Anthony Cumia from Opie and Anthony fame are all loudly taking the Social Justice Warriors to task on their anti-male, anti-White rhetoric; in fact, the term “Social Justice Warrior” itself has only recently become a staple in discourses to describe Leftists, thanks in no small part to these Libertarians. Milo Yiannopolous, the gay conservative Christian who writes for Brietbart over in the UK, has made numerous television appearances where he obliterates feminist arguments. Even people who once identified as left-wing (i.e. Christina Hoff Sommers of the American Enterprise Institute) are now shifting more into a Libertarian stance vis-a-vis the modern crazies who typify the modern Left.
I think that we are at the beginning of a cultural shift here. As the Left gets even more insane in its demands and grievances (i.e. that women should be able to withdraw sexual consent long after a man has sex with her), more and more people who once deemed themselves basically liberal will sidestep into the center, and those who were already at the center will start embracing the worldview that WE offer them. This is a great time for Identitarianism, I think.
I’ve been following the counter-feminist efforts for a number of years, including gamer gate. The folks countering feminism do almost nothing to counter the anti-White male narrative. They even have developed and embedded an anti-White female narrative into their work.
This is understandable given the rotten attacks on White men. What is interesting is that when White women started countering feminist ideas, they jumped in and redirected the energy.
They appear to have many goals in common with feminists. Reduce successful heterosexual pair bonding and procreation. The mainstream supporters such as Sommers, Young , Milo, and a few others collaborate on social media and socially.
I don’t know why they counter feminism. But from what I’ve seen it certainly isn’t to remoralize White men. I don’t believe these folks are our friends as entertaining as their media antics are.
I would say that they have done quite a bit to challenge the anti-White narrative. If you go on youtube and watch “Gavin McInnes vs Feminism compilation,” you will see him effectively and humorously debunk the idea of “White privilege” against an ignorant feminist; Lauren Southern, the Canadian Libertarian, has a video where she argues against the same concept. There are other examples as well.
As for the “anti-White female narrative,” it’s not so much against White females as much as it is merely pointing out that most of your feminist/social justice bloggers ARE in fact pampered, suburban White females (many of whom are probably also Jewish, to be sure.) If I am wrong, though, please give me some contrary evidence.
As for reducing heterosexual pair bonding, I fail to see any examples of this. For example, McInnes is constantly mocking men who won’t propose to their girlfriends and women who focus on careers over marriage. When Milo says anything negative about marriage, it’s about gay marriage (albeit because he feels that gays shouldn’t be tied down by these institutions.)
As for Cultural Libertarians not being our friends, I would not go that far. I think that in many ways, Cultural Libertarianism sort of represents that stage that many people go through before becoming fully White Nationalist. Also, there is no reason why they cannot serve as allies in some form or another. I don’t think that WNs should be throwing capital at them, but there is certainly no harm in teaming up online, on college campuses, or in the streets. In fact, Cultural Libertarianism could be a very effective milieu in which to disseminate our own worldview.
While you should be commended for exploring some of the negative consequences of Libertarianism, you have quite mistaken ideas about individualists. I don’t know where you get the notion that individualism has anything whatsoever to do with universalism.
Individualism cannot exist with an equal amount of selfishness. That necessary self-centeredness becomes a defensive wall against others. Egoism is a sort of bullet-proof vest against interlopers. An individualist is not “open to strangers” as you believe, but regards other people as his adversaries. Communitarians are his opponents – even other individuals are his rivals. Think of the “lone rider” of the Old West as an example of the individualist personality.
Individualists are always “out for number one” – so they are well aware of all the dangers posed by various “collectivist tribes.” Individualists are hardly “blind to groups” as you assert. Quite the contrary, individualists realize that groupings are always his mortal enemy. Some collectives might, obviously, pose a greater danger than others – bur the individualist is wary of all parasite tribes, no matter their origin. An individualist keeps his distance from any collective whatsoever.
Individualism might well be regarded highest form of ethnocentrism – as the only ethnic group that matters is your own particular genetic line. No individualist is ever “open to strangers” as you claim. The gold miner of the Old West, for instance, would have regarded any outsider as a potential claim-jumper
Where the hell do you see the individualist “extending the hand of friendship,” as you put it? All this hand holding is something done by liberal communitarians, not individualists. If an individualist is shaking a stranger’s hand with his right, then that same individualist has a prudent grasp of a conceal pistol in his left (metaphorically speaking).
If the West is in decline, there is only one thing for a Traditionalist to do: go it alone. When a modern reactionary starts out as a fascist, he soon realizes that that political posture stands no chance in hell, so there is only one intelligent position where the contemporary rightist might end-up: individualism.
I think you are describing a sociopath, not an individualist.
Perhaps so, but it is also the same approach as advocated by an individualist libertarian book formerly distributed by Counter-Currents: “Might is Right”.
Yes, sadly it is.
“Quite the contrary, individualists realize that groupings are always his mortal enemy. Some collectives might, obviously, pose a greater danger than others – bur the individualist is wary of all parasite tribes, no matter their origin. An individualist keeps his distance from any collective whatsoever.”
Whites follow that. Colored follow ethnocentrism. Whites lose. Coloreds win.
Mr. Mean-Spirited on Counter Currents!! SWEET.
I like this approach to refuting libertarianism. It is more social and historical than theoretical.
I was briefly enthralled with libertarianism before returning to a more grounded Southern nationalist Tory worldview. Studying it was useful though, I think.
Historian Hugh Thomas claimed that the Communists were able to subsume the Anarchists of the Republican front, in the context of the Spanish Civil War, simply because the Anarchists were too principally individualistic, whereas the Communists had collectivised. The Anarchists were so dogmatic that their self-selected battle squadrons would choose to sit out a fight against the Falange rather than proceed by a “fiat” plan of “minoritarian” consensus. The Communists, meanwhile, were occupying factories like a well-trained unit, having gotten their orders directly from Moscow via La Pasionara and a host of others.
I am Libertarian Traditionalist and believer in secure borders and tough immigration restrictions. I believe that one cannot have libertarianism outside of a traditionalist and more or less homogeneous state. Only in a secure nation state can one truly act as an individualist and in his best interest.
Your racial weakness is evident in the language you use. “Tough immigration restrictions” – i.e. punishing; cruel-but-necessary. The implication is that there is something morally dubious about keeping out people who are deemed incompatible. People who talk this way, regardless of how “tough” they think they are, generally insist that there must be some immigration. There can never be no immigration in their minds. There must be some immigration – there simply has to – but they’re going to control it, see. They refuse to consign themselves to demographic oblivion in the space of fifty years. Nosiree, they’re nobody’s fools – they insist it take two hundred and fifty years to demographically wipe themselves out.
Your comment spells out succinctly how I feel about libertarianism and nationalism.
Excellent article. And this is coming from a radical Libertarian. You’ve got yourself a new reader.
I find no necessary conflict between white nationalism and the individualist philosophy. A man might adore his own genetic family precisely because of its capacity of producing the sort of individuals that matter. Not at all sure that garden-variety Caucasians more endear themselves to me than other bipeds of the common plan.
I’m translating this one in French, if you’re interested.
Please do
Just sent.
A concise and thorough description of the basis of what I call “Libertarian Nationalism.” Reblogged and quibcagged here:
Greg Johnson Puts LIbertarianism in its Place
Libertarians aren’t allowed to discriminate based on “collectivist” classifications, such as race, sex, age, class, etc?
They would legally allow it but morally condemn it as collectivist.
“They would legally allow it but morally condemn it as collectivist.”
Isn’t that just part of allowing people to be able to do whatever they want as long as they don’t harm anyone else? It would be up to each individual to decide how they choose to discriminate, wouldn’t it? Sure there might be moral condemnation, but isn’t that part of being an open society? I thought the whole point of a libertarian society was that is should be possible to see who the “bigots” of this world are? People would then be free to be able to discriminate themselves with relation to how they wish to transact with these “bigots”?
Don’t you discriminate when you buy stuff? How about when you make determinations as to who you would be friends with? So, why can’t people in a libertarian society discriminate based on “collectivist” classifications? I can’t see why each person can’t decide for themselves.
As an aside, I’m not sure what you mean by this…
“How does one cheat an individualist? By pretending to be an individualist while working as a member of a group. You demand that individualists give you a fair shake in every transaction. But whenever possible, you give preferences to members of your own tribe, and they give preferences to you.”
You seem to be making an assumption that individuals never cooperate, or act in groups, associations, clubs etc themselves. Is this true about libertarians? They only keep to themselves?
The last sentence smacks of Marxism/socialism/communism. So, why in a libertarian society would libertarians not figure out that this is happening? They wouldn’t talk to each other or communicate their observations and concerns?
There never will be a libertarian society. Therefore, if you want to know the practical implications of libertarianism, don’t talk about their utopias. Talk about what they support in present-day society. In present-day society, libertarians morally condemn racism alongside the Left. They formulate a variety of Leftist/anti-racist hegemony that appeals to the tiny minority that likes classical liberalism.
One the second point, you have misunderstood me. There are two ways to cooperate. One is to be an individualist, and cooperate with people based on their individual merits. The other is to be a collectivist and cooperate with people on the basis of their group identity. The collectivist cheats by pretending to be an individualist, and demanding fair treatment from individualists, but not reciprocating, because whenever collectivists have a benefit to distribute, they give it to a member of their group, not the most qualified person, no matter what his group origin.
For me this is common sense.
Years ago I used to know this very nice Libertarian lady. She looked forward to the day when America would have a “free society, ” a country of economic prosperity for all and you could grow cannabis in your basement without a SWAT team kicking in the door at 2 AM. At the time, one could understand her enthusiasm about libertarianism. After all, even Bill Clinton was talking about how the era of big government was over.
Well, maybe libertarianism made sense then. But today?
A libertarian society might work in a society which is racially cohesive, and where the elites’ interest were in line with that of the middle class. Like maybe in the mid-20th century, when modern libertarianism first became a political movement. But this presumes that everyone is playing by the same rules. The Libertarian Party itself was founded at a time when America was still a predominately white country, when there were strong labor unions, when industry was located at home, when regardless of who won an election, you’d have a Nixon or McGovern or Mayor Daley who still were, well, white folk.
The error which libertarians—and for that matter, most Americans—make is in assuming that the peculiar political-economic conditions of the mid-20th century are the default situation. In a white country run for white interests, there is the luxury of college students smoking marijuana to expand their consciousness, or in dumping the minimum wage so the Horatio Algers can work their their way up to becoming the next captains of industry. That won’t happen when you have an exploding low IQ/low impulse control demographic executing driveby shootings daily and demanding “reparations” for slavery.
A question which never quite gets asked, much less answered, is why the USA could have been a more free society from, say, the Constitution of 1788 to, say, the New Deal—an era of de jure and de facto white supremacy. The answer, I imagine, is that to maintain liberty you need a higher sort of people who understand the value of individualism, citizen duties as well as rights. That won’t be the case where, as you note, there are non-white ethnic groups fighting for their collective interests.
We have seen a civil rights revolution in America. And we are seeing massive, unrestricted immigration into the first world, whether across the Rio Grande or via the Mediterranean. Have first world countries become any freer? Do we see the immigrants demanding lower taxes, an end to gun control, and more free speech?
Of course not. We see a massive expansion of state power under the fronts of affirmative action, fair housing, “diversity” indoctrination, university speech codes, hatecrime laws, ad nauseam. In Europa, we see out and out secret police measures as law enforcement monitors conversations and the welfare state is expanded to accomodate third worlder dysfunction.
A case in point is Emma West, the English woman who told third worlders on a public conveyance that they did not belong in Britain. She became the subject of the an intense womanhunt and was, at last report, locked up for ungoodspeak.
How is any of that libertarian?
Objectivists declare that they too are opposed to “racism” because it is nothing more than “barnyard collectivism.” Are Objectivists willing to march on down to their local NAACP chapter or campus Chicano Studies Program, or into one of London’s Islamist No Go Zones and wag their individual fingers in collective faces, and inform them that they are “barnyard collectivists?” Will they tell them they must dissolve their racialist organizations, defund their campus ethnic stufdies programs, foreswear affrirmative action?
Maybe, and if any Objectivists do this, perhaps they can post a video on the Internet of the response. Think that will ever happen?
The dilemma is that Open Borders will create the demand for Big Government. You’ll have the various non-white groups demanding more collective benefits. And if whites get their act together and crack down on the third worlders, it’ll mean a massive expansion of police powers, surveillance and just plain unpleasantness like taking military action against “refugee” invaders on the high seas or in the interior No Go Zones. You’d probably need a nationalist government to enforce the rules for a nationalist economy to prevent the forces of globalization from exporting industry-jobs, and from importing the third world.
(In fairness, there are strong libertarian arguments against open borders—the old Liberty magazine, now published online, has made one of the best cases against immigration on libertarian grounds, both ideological and practical.)
After having ranted all this, there is a use for libertarianism in a white nationalist movement, this in the realm of agitprop.
WN can claim they are fighting for free speech against a repressive state apparatus. The First Amendment still has some resiliency among Americans, and even globally. Force the System onto the defensive, stigmatize it for its repression. Attack the contradictions. Consider your recent article on viral acts. Imagine on a certain day, WN all around the world – networked via the Internet – display Confederate, white South African and Wehrmacht battleflags in mass acts of civil disobedience. Then dare the System to do anything.
WN can also promote the Right to Bear Arms. Take up the banner of that armed citizenry which is supposed to be a counterbalance against tyrannical government and foreign invasion.
These are tactics, of course, in a much larger struggle for the freedom of White people.
Libertarianism ultimately seems to boil down to what Roger Garaudy called “the monotheism of the market.”
We need to do away with Jewish political economy (i.e., parasitism) in all its forms.
I think that White nationalism should identify itself with “race and personality” — to use the formula of Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler — as opposed to universalism and individualism. Race and personality is the basis for an authentic and healthy sense of identity.
“In present-day society, libertarians morally condemn racism alongside the
Left. They formulate a variety of Leftist/anti-racist hegemony that appeals to
the tiny minority that likes classical liberalism.”
That doesn’t actually answer my post. Sure, libertarians could morally condemn
theft alongside the Right as well.
Why can’t libertarians discriminate in today’s society? Don’t libertarians say
that people can discriminate? That means, doesn’t it, that people are
therefore allowed to associate in whatever groups to wish to. Isn’t that why
they say the socialists & communists can live in a libertarian society? So
surely they would have no problem with people associating in other groups of
their choice, such as Black, Jewish, & Lesbian communities etc?
“They would legally allow it but morally condemn it as collectivist.”
People do like to categorise. But, why would they morally condemn it as
collectivist? How does morally condemning something as an individual make it
collectivist anyway?
“We must be “blind” to race. We must be “blind” to class. We must be “blind”
to sex. We must be “blind” to religion. We must be “blind” to nationality. We
must be “blind” to all things that divide us. The only thing we must see are
individual merits.”
That sounds more of a collectivist thing to me. Equality. Which libertarians would
completely reject.
Whereas I see libertarians being more in line with what is espoused here:
“The true right rejects egalitarianism root and branch.”
Therefore being able to discriminate. Just like libertarians.
When have you ever seen libertarians say, or suggest such things anyway? I haven’t. I
thought libertarians point out that these things need to be recognised,
otherwise how would they be free to discriminate? Isn’t that what the “true right” do?
Why would one want to to be blind to such things anyway? Wouldn’t you prefer to know who around you is a bigot, a racist, a gay-hater, a sexist? A Marxist? Otherwise, how would you as
an individual be able to decide who you wanted to freely associate with
without the ability to be able to discriminate on any grounds, collectivist,
or otherwise?
“One the second point, you have misunderstood me. There are two ways to
cooperate. One is to be an individualist, and cooperate with people based on
their individual merits. The other is to be a collectivist and cooperate with
people on the basis of their group identity. The collectivist cheats by
pretending to be an individualist, and demanding fair treatment from
individualists, but not reciprocating, because whenever collectivists have a
benefit to distribute, they give it to a member of their group, not the most
qualified person, no matter what his group origin.”
I’m not sure you’ve added anything additional in there. I can’t see it.
“The other is to be a collectivist and cooperate with people on the basis of
their group identity”
When I’m in a group, I don’t think of myself as a collectivist. But, merely an
individual participating among other individuals. How does this change of
mindset happen? Don’t libertarians recognise the need to be able to form free associations, groups, and collectives when necessary? Libertarians are social animals too. Aren’t they just against the use of force to keep, place, or seperate people based on these “collectivist” concepts?
“The collectivist cheats by pretending to be an individualist, and demanding fair treatment from
individualists”
And you don’t think that libertarians wouldn’t recognise this? After all, they’re against redistribution of wealth through the use of force, violence and coercion. So, you don’t think they would recognise this cheating? How can it be considered ” fair treatment” when they’re not “reciprocating”? Libertarians advocate for value for value exchange. If they don’t get that, why would they continue to exchange? That’s a Win/Lose, not a Win/Win situation. Maybe a real world example might help me understand this concept more.
Sorry about the style. I had to continue my thoughts on a separate PC and the formatting got messed up.
Let me get this straight and please correct me if I’m wrong.
You are basically saying that Libertarians will lose out to collectivists because collectivists will “cheat”. The problem that I see with this is that you are making the assumption that “libertarians” don’t allow “cheating”. Now I will agree that the libertarian ideal discourages cheating on a governmental level. In other words you don’t get to use the government to cheat. However, there is nothing in the libertarian philosophy that says you can’t cheat outside of government.
So in fact the libertarian position is that groups can’t use the “force” of government to cheat. On an individual level we are absolutely free to create groups of our own. We can be as nepotistic as we want, we can have communities that are set up for groups of people as well.
You seem to be claiming that libertarians are not allowed to have “groups” yet in fact we do. The biggest group we belong to is that of like minded individuals, libertarians, anarchists, minimalists etc. That in and of itself is a group. Now should we discriminate against people by color from joining our group? Wouldn’t make much sense but we could. I could have a big lecture and say it’s for whites only. Although again why on earth I would want to exclude people who share my values is beyond me.
Now currently we have a system in which you are free to use the guns of government to cheat right? Well how is that working out for you? What would change if the country was a night watchman state? Groups could still “cheat” they just wouldn’t be able to use the guns of government to do it.
Oh and please don’t hand me the line that “no libertarian society can exist”. That is nothing more than sophistry. Of course it CAN exist. It’s clearly an attempt at having things both ways. On the one hand you argue this point. A libertarian society wouldn’t work because…… Then you claim that libertarian society can’t exist. Well which is it?
I am saying that individualists will lose out to collectivists, if individualists play by individualist rules in their interactions with collectivists, but collectivists pretend to be individualists but actually work as a group. When the individualist has something the collectivist wants (a job, a contract, a prize, etc.), the collectivist will demand to be treated fairly, on the basis of individual merit, because he knows that such rules increase the likelihood that he will get the job, the contract, the prize, etc. But when the collectivist has a prize, job, contract, etc. to dispose of, the individualist does not have a fair shot at winning it, because the collectivist might pretend to be an individualist, and pretend to be fair, but he will in fact help another member of his ingroup. Multiply these kinds of asymmetrical interactions by the millions, and there will be a trend toward collectivists getting wealthier and individualists getting poorer.
Basically, your position seems to amount to dropping the appeal to individualism and admitting that collectivist strategies could emerge in a libertarian society, but then saying “So what?” Here’s the “what.” Answer me this: Given that libertarian politics are premised on individualist ethics–given that people believe that libertarianism will allow people to rise based on their own merit–why would anyone accept libertarianism when they hear that, no, in fact it actually empowers parasite tribes to swindle individualists, and to swindle them by means of their own individualist ethics? But if individualists decide that they have to exclude the collectivist cheats from their system, that means that they themselves are acting collectively. They are creating a collective that follows individualist rules within it, but practices exclusion towards people who play by different rules. Furthermore, only a state with geographic borders could erect such barriers to parasite tribes.
If a libertarian society could be set up, it would soon cease to exist, because it would be invaded from without and corrupted by parasite tribes from within. The closest approximation to a libertarian society that can exist would have a state, borders, and would exclude all collectivist groups. But these measures would be condemned by present-day libertarians as fascist, racist, and anti-Semitic. I’m fine with that.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Edit your comment