(CORE) On Race And Diversity In Libertarianism

(cross posted for reference) (insights) (important)

Methods of justification for libertarianism (or any other political and moral bias)
1) Sentimental (I like it)
2) Moral (it’s better)
3) Historical (it works)
4) Empirical (direct experimentation)
5) Economic (indirect experimentation)
6) Ratio-scientific (cumulative evidence and theory)

1) Conservative and Classical Liberal Land holders (christian)
2) Anarchic and religious non-land holders (jewish/gypsies)

1) German (Kant/hierarchical/duty/nuclear family)
2) French ( Rousseau/equalitarian/care/traditional family)
3) British (smith-hume+ / aristocratic egalitarian / empirical/ absolute nuclear family)
4) Jewish (ricardo-mises-rothbard/tribalism)

1) The british saw free trade as an international means of achieving peace and prosperity for all europeans.
2) The germans were trying to resist british consumerism’s disruption of ‘social order’ implicit in german ‘duty’.
3) The french were trying to extend the family to all of society, and demonstrate their nobility having failed to conquer Europe.
(The failures of the world wars and transformation from demonstrated material achievement, to the use of generosity and diversity to maintain status, explain current european behavior.)
4) The jews were and are, trying to justify their participation in a host society without integrating.

There are two basic reasons for ‘tolerance’ in the libertarian movement.
1) Jewish authors justifying right to inclusion but denial of the necessity of payment into the commons.
2) christian authors arguing for payment only into non monopolistic commons, while retaining a homogenous moral commons.
3) feminist and postmodernist influences.

I think that Rothbard brought his heritage to the table (just as Hayek stated of Mises) and he conflated the two ambitions.

This is actually, the reason why rothbard failed to give us a morally tolerable libertarianism. And it is why libertarianism fails to gain traction. Humans are tribal. Immigration is a political problem. And human seek political power. So it is better to have a homogenous, liberty seeking people, for whom no seizure of power is of any group benefit, because the group is already in power. And there is no incentive for status achievement, because in a homogenous society, there is no status value to trying to gain power.

Hoppe, through admittedly interesting logic, has shown that rothbard was wrong. I have I think, with rather scientific rather than purely rational terms, demonstrated that Rothbard was wrong.

There is a very great difference between ‘we will not fight despite our differences if we trade’ and ‘we are all equal and can politically cohabitate without conflict’. Politics is a family matter. Trade is a cross-family matter. We can easily trade, but we cannot be politically diverse without replacing conflict over trade with conflict over politics.


THE STATUS ECONOMY RULES. We don’t ‘need’ much as human beings, except to hold onto our status, improve our status, and prevent loss of status. Loss aversion is more applicable to status than any other human trait except perhaps life and limb. We accumulate status, and desperately hold onto it.

Leave a Reply