Defending Libertarianism Wherever I Need To – Today’s Edition

From Politicus USA “Real Liberal Politics”


There is a reason that the term ‘libertarian’ cannot be explained, the same way social democrats cannot explain marxist theory (which is extremely elaborate. Like leftism, Libertarianism can refer to a sentiment (the preference for liberty above all other moral ambitions). It can refer to a moral conviction that liberty produces ‘goods’. It can refer to a political preference – which is the minimization or elimination of bureaucracy because all bureaucracy becomes self serving. It can refer to an economic model that suggests liberty will provide the most competitive and wealthiest economy for all. It can refer to a political model, such as Classical Liberalism, Private government or Anarcho Capitalism. It can refer to a specific and rigid philosophical doctrine that states that all exchanges must be voluntary and devoid of fraud theft or violence. And in the classical liberal model, additionally, that transactions may not cause externalities (external involuntary transfers), and that norms and the commons are forms of property we must pay for through forgone opportunities for self gratification. But whether anarchic or classical liberal, or anything in between, the guiding principle is that all rights can be reduced to property rights, and the only ‘rights’ we can possess are those that are reducible to property rights. Libertarianism is, aside from marxism, the most analytically rigorous political theory that exists.

So a person who refers to himself as a libertarian, may be correct in that he prefers less government and more personal liberty, for anything from a sentimental desire, to a fully and rationally articulated philosophical, economic and political model.

So if someone doesn’t know how to explain what ‘libertarianism is” that’s because you’re talking to people with sentimental attraction rather than something more rationally chosen.

Of course, the right answer, is that it’s easy to advocate for a moral preference, about which you hold a genetic, habituated, and reinforced position. It’s much harder to objectively articulate every perspective on the political spectrum and compare those choices.

Explaining the libertarian perspective.

Libertarians are not idealists about human nature.
1) they believe that weapons should be in their hands in case the government overreaches. The cost of government abuse is higher in the aggregate than even war. There is no higher ‘good’ that preserving liberty.
2) They believe that the data shows that disarming people increases crime.
3) They believe that the only way to protect children is to either arm teachers or put armed guards, armed parents, or armed policemen in the schools.

1) The woman who complained was a conservative not a libertarian.

1) The west developed the high trust society out of indo european aristocratic egalitarianism. (evolving to aristocratic manorialism). I won’t bore you with the full set of historical details. Conservatives are the remnants of this manorial system and the reason that we have the high trust society that the rest of the world can only marvel at. Necessary components of the high trust society are forced outbreeding (forbidding cousin-marriage) and property rights. This breaks normal familial and tribal bonds and fools humans into acting as if all people in a society are family members. (Something that only westerners think.)

Libertarians in the founding fathers sense, are a product of the rise of anglo commercial society during the enlightenment. They are STILL ARISTOCRATIC, in that they are both meritocratic, and fully embrace universalism. HOwever they havec dropped the militarism since it’s unprofitable under trade, even though it was highly profitable under manorialism, and the only source of profit under indo european pastoralism.

In more practical terms, just as liberals are the thought leadership for social democrats, libertarians are the thought leadership for the conservatives. Conservatives speak in metaphorical and allegorical and historical language. Classical Liberal Libertarians speak in philosophical language, and Anarchic Libertarians and Private Government libertarians speak in economic language and use analytical philosophy.


PS: I found this post through google alerts that I have set up for any blog that posts about libertarianism.


Thank you for the kind words. I try very hard. The truth is that in the past, I intentionally tried the antagonistic approach for a year (because it draws a lot of attention) and realized that it was’t helping me understand anyone, or any one understand me, and it was drawing negative attention. So I changed my approach, and have tried to be objectively informative. The work by Jonathan Haidt helped me understand the progressive and liberal perspective and supplied enough quantitative data to support all perspectives, that I ceased attributing negative intent to most political argument regardless of spectrum.

As for my work in Libertarian and conservative theory, I’m one of the only active post-analytic libertarian philosophers. My original intent was to assist conservatives in speaking in rational language rather than metaphorical language. My thoughts on that have changed over the past few years. Now my work is an attempt to find a solution to post-democratic government, and the problem of conflict in large polities under majority rule.

Rorty has put forth that the metaphysical program has been a failure and that ‘truth’ is effectively consent. “whatever people agree upon”. This is what separates analytic from post analytic philosophy: that we abandon the program of justifying philosophy as a science, and that we fully incorporate science, and attempt to interpret, understand and incorporate it.

Rothbard reduced all rights to property rights and voluntary exchange – effectively making the same argument as Rorty. (Although that’s a difficult statement for some to swallow.)

Rothbard attempted to create an anarchic system, but like most reformists he failed because his ethical program was insufficiently complete to satisfy the moral and reproductive requirements of other than a narrow minority.

Hoppe, following Rothbard, extended propertarian reasoning and solved the problem of a monopolistic bureaucracy with competing insurance companies. Which is largely (at least in terms of budgetary activity) what the US Government and most western governments do today. Very little is spent on what we supposedly justify government with : infrastructure. This solution satisfies the needs for small homogenous polities. Partly because small homogenous polities are highly redistributive because they function as an extended family. And in turn, this is because increasing diversity does incrase status signal rewards for people at the bottom of society for a time, but it has the consequence of eroding trust and exchange.

The problem is, that small homogenous polities a) have less ability to insure, b) have less ability to negotiate import export terms. And so large polities are more economically competitive, but have much higher internal friction and resistance to redistribution. I am trying to solve this problem. I think I have. But time will tell.



Actually, every piece of data that we have confirms that libertarians are both the best informed and the most economically knowledgeable. (And almost entirely male.)

Economic conservatives who state they are libertarian are not incorrect, since libertarianism is simply a commercial offshoot of conservatism (aristocratic egalitarianism.)

Social conservatives do not generally state that they are libertarian, because they place higher emphasis on norms, and are, most of teh time, representing the middle, lower middle, and upper proletarian classes. Upper middle class conservatives tend to self identify either as classical liberal libertarians. And that pure ‘geeks’ as libertarians entirely. This difference has to do with the perceived value of the opinions of others, and roughly maps to 15points of periodicity in the IQ curve, and therefore to social class. This is because ‘others’ are an advantage to more average people because they provide information and ideas, and less of an informed source to more intellectually and financially independent people. There is no mystery to this. It isn’t the 19th century. We have a lot of polling data that goes back to the second world war now. And we have fair economic data back into the 1700’s.

Political preferences generally are a) genetic in origin and b) reflect our different reproductive strategies – at least in the aggregate. That is why people’s preferences don’t change, other than that they tend to become more conservative as they age, and gain a deeper understanding of human nature.

This is just how it is. Political argument is specious because no one is ever convinced of anything. They just reinforce their existing opinions because their existing opinions are necessary for their reproductive strategy. Liberals for example (less than 20% of the population) are not breeding. Conservatives are breeding. And immigrants are outbreeding them both. The only material shift in the polity has come from the increases in single mothers, who would have swung conservative but as single mothers swing left to gain support from the state that they cannot get from a husband and family. And the constant shift of white nuclear family voters to the republican party, which is, at present, becoming the ‘white’ party, at least numerically.

Parties are arbitrary devices. They don’t mean much other than that the party structure in different countries causes more or less diversity of interest, while power still consists of coalitions built ether in the populace directly as here in the states, or in the government’s multi-party system as in much of Europe.

This, in turn, is caused by the use of majority rule as a deciding factor in political action. Versus the multiple-winners and losers in markets.



QUOTE: The currently popular teabagger version of Libertarianism is “carpetbagger Libertarianism,” at best. A hyper-wealthy elite (think Koch brothers) pump out the accepted memes through their wholly-owned consortium of “advocacy groups”

ANSWER: Actually, conservatives made an intentional decision to abandon the popular press as a vehicle, because the combination of left bias in the media, and in the school system required an alternative means of advocacy.

This led to a focus on think tanks, magazines, inexpensive AM radio, and governorships.

These think tanks have produced a series of strategies and ideologies.

One of them was that we ally with the capitalists (big money) to compete with the state, that was dependent upon these companies for revenue to support their left leaning programs.

Another strategy was to try to drive the government into bankruptcy before it could bankrupt and corporatize the private sector, and therefore illustrate the failure of the Keynesian debt model and inter-temporal redistribution that the social democratic state’s ponzi-financing was built upon. And then return to a savings and interest state that was less fragile. This strategy is what you see being played out in washington today. Forcing the government into insolvency in order to undermine the state’s legitimacy.

THe problem was, that while conservatives were able to understand that the left would use immigration and the destruction of the nuclear family to win a majority, they believed that they could morally appeal to the majority of the american public that leans conservative. And it worked. They changed the debate.

What they did not count on was the rapidity of immigration from the third world, the drop in reproductive rates, and the loss of american economic advantage once the rest of the world adopted capitalism. The general conservative thinking was that we could outlast the communist movement worldwide, and protect our empire inherited from the British empire. They did not count on the attempt of the muslim world to organize and undermine the world system of oil production that the USA used to finance it’s military operations by selling petrodollars, then inflating them away. THis is how we pay for the 1/3 of our budget that we cannot pay for out of tax production. It is also how Europe affords its services: they don’t pay for the stabilization of oil prices either with policy or military expenditure like we do.

I know this history because I was there. I was a bit player. But I have been involved in this thinking since high school. What changed my mind is the realization that the constitution failed to protect our individual rights. And that by introducing women into the voting pool, we forever changed the classical liberal and aristocratic models, because women have a genetic interest that is the polar opposite of that of men.

So some of us are trying to figure out what we do next.


2 responses to “Defending Libertarianism Wherever I Need To – Today’s Edition”

  1. Glad to see some continued posting on here, and glad you made this response.

    I commented on the post as well, but in case it doesn’t get through the moderation (sigh) here is how I replied to the same piece:

    “So the take home that I got from this was as follows:

    1. A crisis occurs (what could be thought of as the 9/11 of school shootings) and many lawmakers attempt to exploit it to pass new laws that restrict what the author of this post should know well Libertarians are in support of.

    2. The Libertarian friends – whoever they are – object to this. Much in the same way they would object to any other non-Libertarian policies (interventionist wars for instance).

    3. You then conclude that they must be republicans in disguise because (GOD FORBID!) they take a the Libertarian position on this SPECIFIC issue.

    I mean, it’s fine if you’re offended by the fact that we react to calls for a “national conversation” in the same way we react to calls for a “war on terror” or whatnot, but how does that support the conclusion you pass off as true in your post?

    I guess what offends liberals about Libertarians (and I really do refer to the big “L” ones and not the wannabes who like the label) is the fact that all those criticisms about being some kind of bigoted homophobic privacy-hating over-moralizing warmongering neocons just doesn’t apply to us.

    Maybe the difficulty in addressing the arguments means that not having the convenience of the usual dismissals you have for those on the right makes dealing with us a lot harder.”

    • A couple of things:

      1) I have started a new business, and this is distracting me from my writing quite a bit. Also, am doing more the sketches of my ideas on FB, then posting them here afterward. So, my ‘project’ (Propertarianism) will continue, and I’ll get the site and the book done. But a business opportunity that continues to fund my writing is something that I need to take advantage of. I seem to make the best progress if I work intensely for about two to three months, then work at something else for a bit. So it’s beneficial. And If I look at Rothbard, Hayek, or god forbid, even Spinoza, these ideas take a very long time to develop. Rawls circumvented the most important problem, so his task was easier.

      2) Thanks for putting your comment here. 🙂 I think your insight, which you should articulate clearly and repeat frequently, is point (3): a) that liberals confuse parties with political preferences, when the number of parties is two, and the number of preferences is very high — this is illogical. b) liberals PREFER to think in terms of parties, because they over-weigh consensus, because they get their information and values about the world from the consensus view (the feminine view), because they over-weigh empathy – conservatives instead look at all forms of capital over long periods of time. Libertarians understand taht the market will solve most problems if we prohibit involuntary transfers. Effectively, this is the same strategy as conservatives, except conservaties have a more negative view of human nature, as well as the limits of the market to train people without supporting institutions. It is possible (and probable) that they are right. c) that libertarians are not republicans. d) that both conservatives and republicans make use of libertarian ideas – because we actually have ideas, and because we speak in economic and philosophical language, not moral metaphor and historical allegory. THe conservative problem is that their language is old, as is their moral code and they have not found a way to express those ancient ideas in economic language. Even if it’s possible. (I can do it. So can they.)

      I hope it’s OK for me to speak in a forward manner. If it isn’t I apologize in advance. That said: You have a good ‘message’ within your writing. But you haven’t reduced it to statements of necessity yet, or empirical statements. You’re still making arguments to preferences without articulating those preferences as preferences for outcomes (which are public and therefore objective) instead of preferences (which are personal and therefore subjective). The libertarian dogma is currently argued as preferences, both personal and moral, because earlier theorists failed to solve the problem of finishing what Rothbard and Mises started. Hayek tried very hard but he got stuck in psychology. Popper in idealism. Rothbard in the Ghetto ethic. Hoppe in german nationalism. But our ideas are not a preference FOR A MINORITY – all other things being equal. They are a necessity. Even the keynesians know that there is a maxiumum amount of profit taking that the government can reap without extraordinary consequences. And they are know learning that there are limits to the power of credit money in a heterogeneous population.

Leave a Reply