Results 1 to 30 of 30

Thread: The Neoreactionary Critique of Libertarianism

  1. #1

    The Neoreactionary Critique of Libertarianism

    I'm going to take a look at some critical things the neoreactionaries have written about libertarianism.

    But first, let's define terms:

    Libertarianism is the idea that property rights (including in the body) ought to maximally respected. Within libertarianism there are various factions: anarchists and minarchists, left-libertarians and right-libertarians, deontologists and consequentialists, etc. Respect for property rights, being the only thing common to all factions, is the essence of libertarianism.

    Neoreaction is more difficult to define, being less a coherent ideology than a constellation of vaguely related ideas, united only in their hostility toward modernity (roughly post-1789 Europe). Central themes include opposition to democracy, support for an established church, and nationalism (which is actually a product of modernity, but ah well). What makes the neoreaction distinct from reaction in general is its attempt to provide utilitarian justifications for its proposals (as opposed to the sentimental justifications common in other reactionary circles).

    Neoreactionary critiques of libertarianism fall into three categories: (1) those based on their misunderstanding of libertarianism, (2) those which are not in fact critiques of libertarianism at all, in its essence, but merely of one or another libertarian faction's peccadilloes, and (3) those rooted in a genuine divergence of principles. The majority, I think, fall into the first or second category: which is to say that, with mutual understanding, libertarianism and neoreaction are largely compatible.

    Without further ado, let's look at some of the critiques.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    There's great variation in quality amongst neoreactionary bloggers. Some are on par with your typical poster in the Breitbart comments section, others are serious intellectuals. This following is nearer the former, I'm afraid, but it's a widely viewed article on one of the larger neoreactionary sites, so I thought it worth a look.

    from, You Down With NAP?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Enoch
    Who’s down with NAP? All my homies! Who would not be down with NAP? After all the NAP (Non Aggression Principle for noobs) is the final word. It is the answer to philosophy. It is the biggest thing in metaphysics since the number 42. It is the absolute, axiomatic ethical truth that unlocks the secret of all human behavior! Though an abstract concept, the NAP naturally inherits the properties of a universal physical law. The NAP is a law of nature unto itself. Isn’t it? To break this fundamental universal moral axiom (as I have strictly defined it within a limited context) is to betray your nature as a rational being and sin against… against… something. Right?
    This falls into critique-fail category #2. The idea that libertarian ethics (rooted in the NAP) are objectively true is not essential to libertarianism. Quite a few libertarians, if not most, recognize that ethical claims do not have truth-value: that there is no such animal as an objective ethics. That is certainly my own view. There are objectively better or worse means of achieving given ends, but the ends themselves are always chosen on the basis of subjective preferences. And I can't help but notice the irony in this charge, since a sizable fraction of the neoreaction have themselves claimed to have sighted the objective ethics unicorn (I speak of the theonomists of course).

    As you would expect when delving into the bizarre and macabre nether realm of anarchist ideology, the various sects cannot agree on exactly what constitutes aggression. In fact they are directly odds with each other on precisely this question. The libertarian/capitalist types define aggression as the initiation of force or threats against people or property. The pinko/commie types define aggression as systems of structured hierarchy (private property being one such system) and the denial of basic human needs
    This one's just a general failure of reasoning. First, that some group of people who are not libertarians attach to the word aggression a non-libertarian meaning reflects on libertarians not at all. It does not imply that our definition is wrong. Second, stipulative definitions cannot be “wrong” in the first place.

    ...we know the issue is not the moral betterment of society. The issue is constructing an oppression narrative for alienated and resentful intellectual types to wield as a cudgel against their perceived oppressors, meaning everyone else in society. In internet chat groups and forums this plays out as a passive aggressive attempt to assert superiority through the back door by catching other people in pre-scripted semantic and logical traps until they give up and quit the debate in exasperation. At this point the anarchist can smugly declare victory in the game of internet anarchy police.
    ...nothing but a long ad hominem fallacy (posted as an example, lots of ad hominems in this article).

    For libertarians taxes are defined as a violation of individual property rights. But the state regards them as a just collection of payments due, and they reserve the right to take them by force if they are not offered voluntarily. In another context libertarians would agree that force is justified in the case of a breach of contract. So then what constitutes a valid contract must also be defined, and must also be axiomatic.
    Ah, our first category #1 failure. That the author believes that libertarians lack a clear definition of what constitute a valid contract makes it glaringly obvious that the author hasn't the slightest familiarity with libertarianism (jabbering with some monkeys on reddit is not conducive to genuine learning).

    Rather than setting you free, dedication to the NAP as the endpoint of your ideology traps you in a prison of words and arcane concepts that don’t relate in any meaningful way to actual human relationships.
    Yea, like, how could the rules governing human interaction (such as who can employ violence against whom) possibly be relevant to actual human relationships?

    Pfftt...

    Obviously in a human society we need rules so that we can have social order, peace and prosperity. I prefer that these rules uphold the subjective right of the individual to own property, keep the fruits of his labor, invest, buy capital assets, gain wealth and have that wealth be secure. This policy has a proven track record of allowing the greatest human societies in history to prosper, and violating this policy has a proven track record of poverty and failure. But these societies emerged out of centuries of human experience, trial and error, organic growth, cooperation, conflict and struggle. They did not come out of the box with an instruction manual. They did not start with some robotic, mathematical formula handed to them out of the world of Platonic forms where ideal concepts exist floating in a void of eternal perfection.
    So, property rights are good but...we mustn't define them very clearly, that would be bad.

    Conclusion? This person has no principled objection to libertarianism; his opposition is all based on misunderstanding (and therefore surmountable).
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 11-16-2015 at 09:12 PM.

  4. #3
    I find these guys intriguing, and agree that most all of their critiques are based on misinformation and misconceptions, but that covers a lot of others also. Much of it is willful blindness.
    "The Patriarch"

  5. #4
    By the same author:

    from, In a Mirror Darkly: Marxism and Libertarianism

    Quote Originally Posted by ”Mike Enoch”
    If you are like me and you have spent more time than is probably healthy in libertarian political and intellectual circles you have probably taken note of various irritating and often ironic trends peculiar to the milieu. One such trend is the tendency of libertarian activists and fellow travelers to be converts from the left. They didn’t start as libertarians and they likely will not die libertarians. Some people stay libertarian for their entire political lives, but considering the intellectual dead end of libertarian ethical constructs like the NAP, these types inevitably become pedantic, tedious bores that perseverate on the same dumbed down talking points while hawking cheap, kitschy merchandise to the latest class of noobs as they roll in. Most libertarians came to the movement from some other radical community. They are usually more than happy to share the story of their ideological journey into the light if you ask them nicely. Most of these stories, mine included, start with Marxism
    Well, mine didn't. Do I win?

    Both ideologies promote what are essentially unfalsifiable narratives and back them up with rhetorical techniques that guarantee a “win” in any political debate. For Marxists they run with the unfalsifiable narrative that the “material forces of production” are inevitably guiding history in the direction of communism. If you object to this notion in debate, rather than addressing your point the Marxist will claim that “class determines consciousness” and thus your bourgeois nature prevents you from seeing this truth....[blah blah Marxist drivel]
    In other words, the Marxists resort to ad hominem fallacies when backed into a corner – yes indeed.

    For libertarians the unfalsifiable narrative from which all their conclusions flow is the “Action axiom”. This axiom states that all man acts, and in so doing he must choose his most highly valued end and the best means, as he sees it, to achieve this end. This actually is pretty straightforward and axiomatic. The libertarian will then attempt to iterate off this axiom to logically derive the rest of libertarian theory. The rhetorical corollary to the action axiom is “argumentation ethics”
    Let's stop there. This is a category #2 failure. Augmentation Ethics (which is indeed nonsense) is not essential to libertarianism. It is not universally accepted by libertarians, it is not the only attempted justification for libertarian ethics, and it was only invented a few decades ago (libertarianism is older by a couple centuries).

    Utopian ideologues are going to be attracted to revolutionary ideologies regardless of what turn out to be in reality rather minor differences in doctrine. It’s really just a matter of who gets to them first. Given the leftist nature of our culture, it will likely be the Marxists that make first contact. My early life in radical politics started with a brief stint in Chomsky style left-anarchism, though even as a naive young fool I could see how ridiculous and unworkable that was. I soon moved on from that and got involved in sectarian Marxism. I was initially attracted to this genre because of their convincing pretense of intellectualism combined with facile one size fits all answers to every social issue. These tiny radical Marxist parties usually have no more than 10 members and no chance at ever being the revolutionary vanguard. Yet they endlessly bicker with each other over arcane points of doctrine and the proper interpretation of various texts by the great masters of old. Pay no attention to the direct parallels with religion here. They are just coincidental and mean nothing. Really.

    I felt compelled to ragequit this leftist bizarro world when one Saturday afternoon I found myself in a run down YMCA in Brooklyn with a group of middle-aged Jewish public school teachers. They were discussing what the party line should be on radical Islam. On the one hand they found it to be a repugnant ideology, but on the other hand the muslims were more effective at fighting US imperialism than any current socialist alternatives. And they were all taking it dead seriously as if it was anything other than a circle fap of epic proportions. I realized I had gone beyond full retard. An overwhelming sense of loathing washed over me like an awesome wave. The people I was around suddenly seemed twisted and horrible. A revelatory religious experience is the closest thing I can compare this experience to. I quietly got up, walked out and never had contact with any of those people again. I sometimes wonder how much thought they put in to the question of my abrupt disappearance. I suspect not much. Such desertions are no doubt commonplace for these sorts of groups.

    But I did not just leave the radical leftist world, I actively embraced the direct opposite. And I did so precisely because it was, or rather it seemed to be, the direct opposite. I had already known of Rothbard, Mises and Rand as the hated enemy. I had been instructed by one “comrade” to not read such material because it was dangerous. So I got my hands on as much Rothbard as I could and went through it like madman. I tore through Mises’s tome “Socialism” in about a week. And every one of those words rang true like was written in my soul. The world seemed suddenly so fresh and new where before it had been dreary and oppressive. Before every social interaction was another example of exploitation or hierarchy. There was hidden evil everywhere, and only myself and a few enlightened others could see it. Libertarianism was nothing like this. At first.

    But of course the emotional high I was riding from the break with the left wore off. I started meeting the exact same kinds of people in the libertarian milieu that I encountered in the Marxist world. They tended to be younger and were therefore slightly less depressing, but many of them were well on their way to being the guy that holds meetings in the run down YMCA in Brooklyn and wears an out of style tweed jacket that smells vaguely of mothballs.
    Sorry for posting all of that, but its sheer length helps make my point.

    Look how focused this fellow is on meaningless aesthetics, personalities, feelings, etc.

    Where in this is there any demonstration of affinity between libertarian and Marxist ideas?

    ...sounds to me like he was a “lifestyle Marxist” and then become a “lifestyle libertarian.”

    ...now perhaps a “lifestyle neoreactionary”?

    I soon found that many libertarians still embraced the notion human equality. In the libertarian world you see, we are all special individuals, but we are also morally equal. Every individual could be a successful businessperson if not for the state and regulations.
    That's not only inessential to libertarianism, I've honestly never met a single libertarian who believes that. That libertarianism would yield unequal outcomes is extraordinarily obvious – and universally accepted, as far as I can tell.

    The same old narratives of oppression came back, just with the cast of characters shifted around a bit to suit a slightly different set of prejudices. The world really was the same dreary place after all. Oppression really was everywhere, it was just coming from a different direction.
    This is hardly unique to libertarianism and Marxism.

    What ideology doesn't identify some kind of injustice?

    Ethics by definition distinguishes between good and bad, just and unjust.

    The evil rich unfairly rely on government protection and subsidy, unlike in the Marxist world where of course the evil rich unfairly rely on government protection and subsidy.
    That sounds good as long you equivocate on the meaning of "protection and subsidy."

    The "protection and subsidy" that libertarians oppose consists in the state violating private property rights, interfering in the market economy.

    The "protection and subsidy" that Marxists dislike consists in the very existence of private property and the market economy.

    Rather crucial difference...

    Conclusion?

    The author fails to demonstrate any meaningful commonality between Marxism and libertarianism and, as with the first article, his errors are based entirely in misunderstanding (no principled disagreements).
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 11-16-2015 at 10:28 PM.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    I find these guys intriguing...
    Indeed

    At their best, they're pragmatic, minarchist, anti-democratic libertarians.

    Then, other times...

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Then, other times...
    Speaking of which...

    Libertarianism and Marxism: The Twin Offspring of Liberalism

    Be Advised: white nationalist pablum incoming

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeiger
    However, libertarianism is a false opposition. It's my contention that Marxism and libertarianism are two sides of the same liberal coin. Bear with me here; I'll explain.

    The central underlying assumption of Marxism (and by extension, of all the SJW nonsense that is plaguing us today) is the notion that humans are fundamentally equal in their abilities (talent, potential, intelligence, etc). This is the logic behind the uplifting of Third World primitives to our level, the abolishing of gender roles, and all the other ills of the modern experience.

    However, in the realm of moral quality, Marxists do not believe in equality at all. Old-school Communists would classify people as being bourgeois (evil, corrupt), workers (fundamentally good or neutral) and Communists (saintly, selfless people). Today, we're all equal, but Whites are evil and greedy, men are pigs and exploiters, while women and non-Whites are various shades of innocent victims or blessings upon mankind. We're all aware of the SJW "hierarchy of victimhood", where different people have higher or lower moral authority depending on their level of "oppression".

    Libertarianism, on the other hand, is based on the notion that men are morally equal, which is to say that all men are selfish and self-interested. Thus giving any man power over others will lead to corruption, as he uses this power for selfish ends. But the ideology does recognize that there is a wide difference in abilities between men. From this dichotomy we get ideas like abolishing governments, or preventing state monopolies.
    So, Marxists take a tubula rasa view of human nature, endlessly inventing new forms of oppression to explain inequalities of outcome.

    While libertarians think that most human beings are self-interested most of the time.

    ...not seeing the connection yet.

    ...and is this guy actually going to deny that people generally pursue their own interests?

    Marxism and Libertarianism, when presented this way, seem diametrically opposed; one believes in equality of ability but a moral hierarchy, while the other believes in moral equality but a hierarchy of ability.
    Indeed they do seem diametrically opposed (because they are).

    ...but why are we saying that libertarians believe in "moral equality"?

    Morality has nothing to do with the empirical observation that most people are not Mother Theresa.

    But both are still based on the liberal lie of equality—they just apply it differently. To the weak-minded emotional thinker, it is easier to accept the victim mentality that comes with Marxism, while to the rugged individualist it's easier to accept the idea that everyone is selfish and that all authority is evil.
    The idea that most people are selfish does not imply a rejection of all authority.

    The problem, of course, is that there is no such thing as equality in this world. I don't need to press this point to this audience; we all know that some people are smart, some are stupid, some are strong, some are weak, and so on. But the concept that there is a moral hierarchy as well will seem blasphemous to many. It shouldn't be.
    Libertarians aren't denying that some people are morally superior to others.

    We are wondering how exactly you would ensure that these people are the ones who end up in government.

    ...and, in any event, much of the libertarian critique of state power has nothing to do with the rulers' intentions.

    No amount of benevolence will make maximum price controls not cause shortages.

    No amount of benevolence will make central bank inflation not cause business cycles.

    etc

    Humans are social animals. Our individual survival depends on the group. No human can survive and prosper alone in the forest.
    As if the libertarian conception of individual liberty entails isolation or precludes cooperation...

    So what's the problem with libertarianism? The problem is that if you put two groups one against another, the one who is best able to work together will overcome the group of individualists. And the group governed by the best and brightest will overcome the group where the best and brightest do their own thing.
    The sinews of war are infinite money. If this fellow understood economics (he clearly does not, as implied earlier), he would know that the society "where the best and brightest do their own thing" (i.e. laissez faire) will always outproduce the society "governed by the best and brightest" (i.e. whatever form of planned economy this fellow favors). So, on the contrary, if you want a group to maximize its odds of survival in competition with other groups, organize it along libertarian lines.

    The point that libertarianism is Jewish in origin has already been discussed extensively before, and I won't rehash that here.
    First, as we indicated above, laissez faire is the best strategy for group survival - so, if the Jews gave it to us, we really ought to send them a thank you card.

    Second, how much do you want to bet that this guy also rants about how the Bolsheviks were Jews? ...ponder that for a moment.

    Third, no, in fact, libertarianism is not of Jewish origin. A few prominent libertarians have been Jews (e.g. Rothbard, Rand, Mises), yes.

    But how about Turgot, Constant, Say, Bastiat, Smith, Ricardo, Acton, Pareto, etc, etc?

    ...I ask rhetorically, about historical figures not listed on the libertarianism wikipedia page and of whom therefore this fellow has never heard.

    Conclusions? All of his stated objections are based in ignorance of libertarianism and economics, but I suspect that he would reject libertarianism even if he fully understood it, for another reason: namely, he appears to value racial segregation et al as an end in itself, which is obviously inconsistent with libertarian principles. Incidentally, I think this is going to become a trend. The neoreactionaries who focus on race are going to be the least assimilable of the bunch. We'll have more overlap with the anti-democratic and theocratic factions.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 11-16-2015 at 11:40 PM.

  8. #7
    And now, for something completely different, here's the sort of neoreactionary which makes me optimistic about a future synthesis...

    What It Means to Be Post-Libertarian

    My only disagreement is that he doesn't consider himself a libertarian (I'd call him a pragmatic minarchist).

    To my mind, what he's criticizing is not libertarianism itself but only a particular strand of it (the unrealistic strand).

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless Gromar
    I call myself quasi-libertarian or even post-libertarian to other libertarians. It’s easier than having to explain the label ‘neoreactionary’. That explanation can come later. And so while I retain a lot of quasi-libertarian approaches to the market and public policy, I reject libertarianism as a whole because I reject its essential core. Neoreaction prioritizes a functional society over an obsession with the rights of dysfunctional individuals. It’s not about J. S. Mill’s harm principle (unless stretched really far), wherein behavior is ignored by the state because it doesn’t ‘harm’ any particular individual or violate any distinct and assignable obligations. Individuals don’t operate in vacuums, and some victimless crimes produce very nasty negative externalities. As far as I’m concerned, that’s sufficient enough for it to be actionable if it’s pragmatic for it to be actionable.
    I quite agree, but this is no way contradicts the essence of libertarianism (respect for property).

    The very purpose of property rights is to internalize externalities (both positive and negative) in order to create proper incentives.

    If there are negative externalities on the loose, that is not a reason to abandon respect for property; it's a sign that property rights have been improperly defined.

    Pollution provides a good example.

    If it's possible for people to pollute without violating anyone's property rights as currently defined, then property rights are improperly defined.

    Solution? Define them better.

    On the level of legal philosophy, that’s what separates neoreaction from libertarianism. Libertarians hold that property rights lead to or are identical with the common good, such that they are virtually inviolable. But we’d reject that; it’s much more contingent, even if we’d adopt a good portion of libertarian microeconomic analysis. Some sins have to be overlooked, while others can be suppressed. The fact that the fire can never be fully put out doesn’t entail that we ought to let it burn the entire hillside to the ground.
    Emphasis on virtually

    The goal of every libertarian is not to eliminate all property rights violations (which is obviously impossible), but to minimize them.

    Even ancaps understand this (insofar as they recognize that crime will never be entirely eliminated).

    Minarchists go further, recognizing that small violations must not only be accepted as facts of life but actively encouraged sometimes to prevent larger violations.

    Is this a slipper slope? Yes, yes it is. And there's nothing wrong with that.

    It actually is better, from a libertarian perspective, to implement martial law than to allow the Bolsheviks to seize Petrograd - however much we dislike martial law.

    And so forth.

    Potentially any state action could be justifiable, depending on the circumstances.

    And so immediately new readers start to see that neoreaction is about coming to terms with a full and wholesale rejection of virtually every liberal assumption—even liberal assumptions that have been imbibed by conservatives, who take their conservatism from American Liberalism in the 18th century. If the state is at least mildly morally permissible (or a necessary evil), then it’s within its mandate to ensure the continued existence and stability of the polity.
    Indeed, but this is not unlibertarian

    To say that it inevitably will lead to greater government may be true. But that then is a problem for libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, not neoreaction. As a friend of mine recently said, “Statists gonna state.” Sometimes, just sometimes, preserving a quasi-libertarian domestic order requires non-libertarian means, so if your philosophy is such that you guarantee your own destruction through, say, open borders, then you might, just might, want to reconsider your initial ethical framework.
    Right again, except that free immigration doesn't actually pose a threat, but that's an empirical issue, not a matter of principle.

    I.E. If it did prove a threat, the state would justified in restricting immigration.

    But the criticism of endless government expansion also falls prey to the charge of the reverse nirvana fallacy. For governments never to expand, we would have to demand from them perfection; we don’t. Liberals point out market failures and then therefore conclude that ‘if the government did it’ then things would be fine. That’s what libertarians typify as the nirvana fallacy, and libertarians are right to reject it, but they make a similar error when they fall into the reverse nirvana fallacy.
    Reality is a little more complex, a little more complicated, and a little more contingent. Sometimes governments fail, and sometimes markets fail, and sometimes non-market orders fail. Sometimes families fail. Comparative institutional analysis is important, but it’s not clear to me that the incentive structures present in the free market by definition overwhelm the case for government action beyond the libertarian programme. I just don’t see it.
    The market most certainly does do everything better than the state - except preserve the continued existence of the market.

    ...which is another way of saying that the state is justified in violating property rights only in order to prevent larger violations.

    the idea that there exists no universal governing structure suited for every polity
    Yes and no.

    The political structure which minimizes property rights violations is always best.

    Of course, what specific structure that is varies by time and place.

    It could be that an optimally sized state for one time/place is too small for another, such that it will actually yield more property rights violations (e.g. by falling to Lenin).

    Unrestricted capitalism seems to me to be best for individualists, and those with creative intelligence, a good work ethic, and high IQs. Neoreaction is about understanding that demographics within polities are composed of more than just the far-right side of the IQ distribution, and that governance should be engaged in with an aim towards the common good, not just the good of the merchant class, or the good of the intelligentsia, but the good of society as a whole.
    If that means something like maximizing average real income, then the goal ought to to maximize liberty (minimize property rights violations), regardless of demographics.

    Conclusion?

    Love it, I wish people like this would stick with the libertarian label. We need more sanity around here.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 11-17-2015 at 01:04 AM.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    there is no such animal as an objective ethics.
    There most certainly is such a thing. Objectivity turns upon the assumptions upon which a proposition is based. If we accept a set of assumptions as true or otherwise desirable, they may then serve as the standard by which objective determinations are made relative to that set.
    Last edited by osan; 11-17-2015 at 04:44 PM.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I soon found that many libertarians still embraced the notion human equality. In the libertarian world you see, we are all special individuals. Every individual could be a successful businessperson if not for the state and regulations.
    That's not only inessential to libertarianism, I've honestly never met a single libertarian who believes that. That libertarianism would yield unequal outcomes is extraordinarily obvious – and universally accepted, as far as I can tell.
    Exhibit:

    Quote Originally Posted by Rothbardian Girl View Post
    I am a libertarian because I believe sincerely that all humans have the potential to be exceptional and useful even in areas that are traditionally regarded as challenging (STEM, higher levels of social science, etc). The Malthusian vision of a permanent underclass restricted to mindless toil does not appeal to me much.
    Everyone is awesome! If only they realized it! Everyone can be an engineer, a CEO, a mathematician. Every child can grow up to be President.

    This position is deep, it is visceral, it is emotional, and it is not easily dislodged. And it is overwhelmingly popular. Now it is nothing to do with libertarianism, per se, but it is only natural that many people in the movement hold this position given how widespread it is in the populace in general (from which libertarianism draws its converts).

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    There most certainly is such a thing. Objectivity turns upon the assumptions upon which a proposition is based.
    A proposition can be objectively true/false if and only if its premises can be objectively true/false.

    But all ethical propositions have premises of the form "X is good," and goodness is not a property existing in objective reality (unlike, e.g., mass or volume).

    It's a property assigned by subjects to things existing in objective reality.

    The truth of statements of the form "X is good" is relative to the subject: i.e. subjective, not objective.

    If we accept a set of assumptions as true or otherwise desirable, they may then serve as the standard by which objective determinations are made relative to that set.
    ....relative to that set, yes.

    In other words, given the truth of the underlying assumptions, certain other propositions logically follow.

    The point is that we do not all agree on those assumptions, and it is impossible in principle to prove which set of assumptions is correct.

    No ethical assumption ("X is good") is inter-subjectively verifiable (unlike, again, the mass or volume of some object).
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 11-17-2015 at 05:12 PM.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Exhibit:
    Well, that's unfortunate...

    Everyone is awesome! If only they realized it! Everyone can be an engineer, a CEO, a mathematician. Every child can grow up to be President.

    This position is deep, it is visceral, it is emotional, and it is not easily dislodged. And it is overwhelmingly popular. Now it is nothing to do with libertarianism, per se, but it is only natural that many people in the movement hold this position given how widespread it is in the populace in general (from which libertarianism draws its converts).
    Indeed

  14. #12
    Thanks for posting R3v. That last one especially to me drives home how the libertarian minarchist arrives at their position. It is an appreciation I have only recently gained, before you posted these but long since you've been yelling at me how you've came to where you are as far as advocation for government goes. Knowing what separates the two sides is monumental, probably absolutely necessary, if one wants to attempt to build a bridge between the two. The label 'darwinist' (or insane as you do) suits me just fine for now, as I advocate for freedom and not necessarily liberty. Hopefully in time through fruitful discussion the anarchist of RPF will get you to join us in the loony bin.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Exhibit:



    Everyone is awesome! If only they realized it! Everyone can be an engineer, a CEO, a mathematician. Every child can grow up to be President.

    This position is deep, it is visceral, it is emotional, and it is not easily dislodged. And it is overwhelmingly popular. Now it is nothing to do with libertarianism, per se, but it is only natural that many people in the movement hold this position given how widespread it is in the populace in general (from which libertarianism draws its converts).
    I have no idea why I am being quoted in this thread. I suppose/hope it's because I'm one of very few people on the forums who actually is willing to defend that line of thinking. I don't think it's necessarily an emotional position (although it does make me happy to see others succeed), but rather a reasonable one based on the severely flawed nature of STEM education. I have written at length about this problem elsewhere on the forum, but I cannot seem to find the post at this time. So, I will attempt to answer it with a new post:

    You seem to be under the impression that mathematics is inherently impenetrable to the vast majority of people. I would argue that this is not true; on the contrary, the way mathematics is typically taught in US schools creates that impression. For every math whiz, there are at least three or four people who find the subject utterly terrifying - problem after problem on the homework that seems impossible, classes governed by strict memorization of formulas and procedures and quiet, independent study/"learning," and often, a distant teacher who does not engage the students after the lesson is over except to answer homework questions. Such scenarios are common in math classes today. This tends to lead to excessive binary thinking - either you have a math brain, or you don't; that's the folk wisdom. There are books devoted to helping kids overcome their fear of math. Thinking that math is an inborn activity leads to students shutting down when they arbitrarily decide that they just can't "do math." The pattern continues in universities, where due to budgetary constraints, math classes are often taught in lecture format and foreign TAs help out (there is nothing inherently wrong with that, but there are some questions as to whether quality education has been sacrificed in favor of cost-cutting. College finances, however, are a whole other can of worms that is frankly tangential to the original topic.)

    Mathematics classes have a long history of being revised (usually the clamor starts every decade) - Common Core is probably the latest development in this tradition, scarcely an unprecedented encroachment into education. But the common thread in all these revisions is that not enough people were acquiring advanced math skills, even when the students tended to be predominantly male. My position is that this lack of performance has to do with the highly algorithmic nature of math education today, despite several reform attempts aimed at "humanizing" math - and if you think this humanization is a vulgarization of what math is supposed to be about, consider that Gauss himself said math is "non notationes, sed notiones" (not notation, but notions). There is practically nothing alluring about math as it is taught in school - no discussions of how proofs, definitions, and examples are arrived at (the beautiful stuff), but rather rules, rules, rules. School treats kids as though they are incapable of handling complex thought, instead preferring to stick to basics. Mathematical maturity must be nurtured and encouraged to grow at an early age - it cannot be grafted on later, after one has learned the basics.

    So why am I going through all of this seemingly unrelated content? I am trying to challenge the assumption that math is inherently something for the top 1% of learners (or a similarly small percentage). I would rather address the serious structural flaws in the math educational system before deciding that "Everyone can be an engineer, a CEO, a mathematician..." is a foolish thing to say. Anecdotally, I have watched myself blossom as a student under certain professors whose teaching style meshed extremely well with my learning style. I have found that certain areas of mathematics appeal to me more than others (I am better at pure math - the proofs, the abstract thinking, yes, even the beauty, rather than applied math). So yes, I do stick by my statement that you felt the need to quote in this thread, one hundred percent. If serious reforms are enacted and there are still issues with finding enough talented math students, then maybe we can talk. But until that happens, I don't think you can summarily dismiss my position so easily.
    Last edited by Rothbardian Girl; 11-18-2015 at 11:58 PM.
    Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever. Thomas Jefferson

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Rothbardian Girl View Post
    I have no idea why I am being quoted in this thread.
    In one of the articles I was dissecting, neoreactionaries were criticizing libertarians for advocating tabula rasa (which they reject).

    I responded that libertarianism doesn't entail tabula rasa, and that I'd actually never met a libertarian who advocated it.

    H.H. posted your comments as a counterexample.

    I don't think it's necessarily an emotional position (although it does make me happy to see others succeed), but rather a reasonable one based on the severely flawed nature of STEM education. I have written at length about this problem elsewhere on the forum, but I cannot seem to find the post at this time. So, I will attempt to answer it with a new post:

    You seem to be under the impression that mathematics is inherently impenetrable to the vast majority of people. I would argue that this is not true; on the contrary, the way mathematics is typically taught in US schools creates that impression. For every math whiz, there are at least three or four people who find the subject utterly terrifying - problem after problem on the homework that seems impossible, classes governed by strict memorization of formulas and procedures and quiet, independent study/"learning," and often, a distant teacher who does not engage the students after the lesson is over except to answer homework questions. Such scenarios are common in math classes today. This tends to lead to excessive binary thinking - either you have a math brain, or you don't; that's the folk wisdom. There are books devoted to helping kids overcome their fear of math. Thinking that math is an inborn activity leads to students shutting down when they arbitrarily decide that they just can't "do math." The pattern continues in universities, where due to budgetary constraints, math classes are often taught in lecture format and foreign TAs help out (there is nothing inherently wrong with that, but there are some questions as to whether quality education has been sacrificed in favor of cost-cutting. College finances, however, are a whole other can of worms that is frankly tangential to the original topic.)

    Mathematics classes have a long history of being revised (usually the clamor starts every decade) - Common Core is probably the latest development in this tradition, scarcely an unprecedented encroachment into education. But the common thread in all these revisions is that not enough people were acquiring advanced math skills, even when the students tended to be predominantly male. My position is that this lack of performance has to do with the highly algorithmic nature of math education today, despite several reform attempts aimed at "humanizing" math - and if you think this humanization is a vulgarization of what math is supposed to be about, consider that Gauss himself said math is "non notationes, sed notiones" (not notation, but notions). There is practically nothing alluring about math as it is taught in school - no discussions of how proofs, definitions, and examples are arrived at (the beautiful stuff), but rather rules, rules, rules. School treats kids as though they are incapable of handling complex thought, instead preferring to stick to basics. Mathematical maturity must be nurtured and encouraged to grow at an early age - it cannot be grafted on later, after one has learned the basics.

    So why am I going through all of this seemingly unrelated content? I am trying to challenge the assumption that math is inherently something for the top 1% of learners (or a similarly small percentage). I would rather address the serious structural flaws in the math educational system before deciding that "Everyone can be an engineer, a CEO, a mathematician..." is a foolish thing to say. Anecdotally, I have watched myself blossom as a student under certain professors whose teaching style meshed extremely well with my learning style. I have found that certain areas of mathematics appeal to me more than others (I am better at pure math - the proofs, the abstract thinking, yes, even the beauty, rather than applied math). So yes, I do stick by my statement that you felt the need to quote in this thread, one hundred percent. If serious reforms are enacted and there are still issues with finding enough talented math students, then maybe we can talk. But until that happens, I don't think you can summarily dismiss my position so easily.
    If you're only arguing that some students could do better with math if it were taught differently, I'd have no objections - nor I imagine would H.H. or any neoreactionary.

    That's very different from saying that everyone can be equally good at math; that there is not natural, unavoidable inequality of mathematical (and other types of) ability.

    ...I'm not sure which position you're taking.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    In one of the articles I was dissecting, neoreactionaries were criticizing libertarians for advocating tabula rasa (which they reject).

    I responded that libertarianism doesn't entail tabula rasa, and that I'd actually never met a libertarian who advocated it.

    H.H. posted your comments as a counterexample.



    If you're only arguing that some students could do better with math if it were taught differently, I'd have no objections - nor I imagine would H.H. or any neoreactionary.

    That's very different from saying that everyone can be equally good at math; that there is not natural, unavoidable inequality of mathematical (and other types of) ability.

    ...I'm not sure which position you're taking.
    I did not say that everyone can be equally good at math, nor do I think that is a reasonable expectation to have. What I am saying is that the baseline of a great majority of people's math skills could be much higher than it currently is. This higher baseline should theoretically create more engineers and mathematicians, or at least rescue those professions from the automatic "wow, you must be really smart to understand that stuff!" associations that they currently receive. There is no good reason for math to be regarded as this arcane discipline that requires a great deal of ability to work with numbers in all cases. Engineering requires a different skillset than does being a mathematician. I am protesting against the exaltation of math skills and the seeming elitism that seems to go along with that. In other words, it should not be seen as unreasonableness to suggest that yes, a great number of people have way more potential to be an engineer or a mathematician than they may think.
    Last edited by Rothbardian Girl; 11-19-2015 at 12:58 AM.
    Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just and that his justice cannot sleep forever. Thomas Jefferson

  18. #16
    You shouldn't go to TRS for theory. It's a fun website with many good contributors, but it's full of "look at how irreverent I am" edgelords. The place had a founding member banished because of the actions of a troll pretending to be a black guy, FFS. Enoch's alright, but he's no Moldbug, Land or even an Anissimov.

    I think you're downplaying the role of equality and indeed, modernity, within libertarianism. It may not be a part of the theory, but it is certainly part of the modern movement. I have met very few libertarians who don't praise universal suffrage as a huge step forward for liberty. They love Martin Luther King and first (and sometimes even second) wave feminism. Even now, look at Rand Paul's desire to re-enfranchise felons. What are they going to vote for? You know as well as I: more gibsmedat.

    I see NRx as something that strips libertarianism of the modernist tumors it has grown, and adds some very necessary concepts: clear hierarchy, cultural identity, racial affinity, traditionalism, patriarchy etc. I don't think there needs to be a synthesis, because NRx is already the result of a synthesis of libertarianism and other, pre-modern schools of thought.
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Let me begin by say this was a good post. There is, however, a problem or two.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rothbardian Girl View Post
    I have no idea why I am being quoted in this thread. I suppose/hope it's because I'm one of very few people on the forums who actually is willing to defend that line of thinking.
    I'm assuming this refers to the one that says "anyone can be..." If not, then please pardon me.

    You seem to be under the impression that mathematics is inherently impenetrable to the vast majority of people.
    "Impenetrable" - no. But difficult to a degree that disqualifies one as a mathematician, engineer, etc., absolutely.

    I would argue that this is not true; on the contrary, the way mathematics is typically taught in US schools creates that impression. For every math whiz, there are at least three or four people who find the subject utterly terrifying
    Oh, the ratio is a lot steeper than that. I have taught undergraduate discrete mathematics and I would call it perhaps 20:1 minimally. You will laugh at this - I still want to cry about it at times - but I was a math major with a degree... and I SUCKED at it. Don't ask - a long, sad, painful, and criminally boring story. I struggled terribly with it at every turn. Some areas I was actually passably competent. Others... sweet Jesus... how I managed to pass, I will never be able to say, though I at times I wondered whether it was the bottomless pity of some of my professors, seeing that poor guy who was either too stupid to see his inadequacies or too stubborn to admit defeat. This is not to say I was not bright. I know I was, but I had endless struggle with the math and some of my instructors were absolutely top-notch. My grasp of the concepts was strong - in fact, far better than all but the real geniuses. But I had terrible trouble with the mechanics. I understood perfectly, for example, what derivatives were and what they meant in real terms, but was absolutely terrible at the mechanics of calculating them. Where there might be, say, half a dozen possible approaches to solving a particular problem, I would almost always pick the worst one. I am willing to admit that, much to what in those days would have been actual shame on my part, I am simply not wired well for that aspect of mathematics. Ask me about tensors, what they do and why they are important and I could recite chapter and verse, as well as come up with a few points the great philosophers missed. Ask me to find a solution using tensors and you would have a very long and aggravating wait on your hands. I'm not a math moron by any means, but I never lived up to the potential I WANTED to have... and I suspect it is because I am not built for it.

    This spilled over into my studies in mechanical engineering and physics ( I was a triple-major at UC Davis) and it really caused me significant problems and I can say that in most cases it had nothing to do with $#@!ty teachers. It was me, plain and simple, so far as I can tell.

    I may have few and meager talents, but one of them is as a teacher. I tend to be VERY good at getting points across. That said, my students of math still had tough times of much of it, though I helped them improve significantly in the vast majority of cases. In the rest, it would seem their brains were simply not wired for it. Whether they were born this way or it was the result of incompetents who ruined them for me... that I cannot say with any remarkable certainty.

    - problem after problem on the homework that seems impossible, classes governed by strict memorization of formulas and procedures and quiet, independent study/"learning," and often, a distant teacher who does not engage the students after the lesson is over except to answer homework questions. Such scenarios are common in math classes today.
    The rote part I agree with you on. The dog-pile teacher part... methinks this may be a circumstance of your generation. I had some truly gifted and very generous teachers. They, sadly, had a less-than-stellar student.


    So why am I going through all of this seemingly unrelated content? I am trying to challenge the assumption that math is inherently something for the top 1% of learners (or a similarly small percentage). I would rather address the serious structural flaws in the math educational system before deciding that "Everyone can be an engineer, a CEO, a mathematician..." is a foolish thing to say.
    Well, I am not following this thread much so I may be speaking out of my sphincter, but there is the notion that not everybody can be a CEO because there are only so many such positions available. We NEED people who mop floors, fix plumbing, repair automobiles, drive busses, cut meat, and so forth. I am thinking that we have painted ourselves, however unintentionally, into a rather tight mental corner in that we revere the true professions and disparage, perhaps obliquely, the presumably "lesser" avenues of making our livings. I think this is a terrible mistake that does nobody any good.

    Back ca. 1988 on Christmas eve one of my pipes sprang a leak. I called my old friend from high school, Barry. He is a plumber and God bless his heart, he came out that night. For a mere 24 hours I had no water. By the time he came the following day my house smelled badly and I was on the edge of willingness to offer someone buttsex to have my water back. 7/8 I learned a valuable lesson that day: all these "lesser" career paths are not lesser in any way that is important. The assessment of them being lesser is utter bull$#@!. Barry makes a fine living as a plumber and he provides a service that most people have no clue how to perform for themselves and would not want to. Few out there would ever want to clean out a grease trap. If you don't know what that entails, just trust me when I tell you that you'd probably rather die by knives shoved into your eyes than do it. It is one of the most disgusting things imaginable.

    I agree that much of what is taught and virtually all of HOW it is taught in public schools and even universities is criminally flawed. But just as importantly, the attitude of absolute uniformity in what is taught flies like an artillery shell over the line, into the realm of deep insanity and disservice to our young people. Not everybody is inclined to math. This is fact and it is NOT a sad one. It is one that leaves me with a sense of relief and happiness, for that is the brand of "diversity" that makes the world go around, unlike that tortured and mangled concept the progressives keep trying to force upon the world in the manner of a monster enema.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePaleoLibertarian View Post
    You shouldn't go to TRS for theory. It's a fun website with many good contributors, but it's full of "look at how irreverent I am" edgelords. The place had a founding member banished because of the actions of a troll pretending to be a black guy, FFS. Enoch's alright, but he's no Moldbug, Land or even an Anissimov.
    If I were to give my own critique of neoreaction, I'd address Moldbug et al, as they're the best NRX has to offer - absolutely.

    But I was looking to rebut neoreactionary critiques of libertarianism, so that's what I searched for, and this is what turned up.

    I think you're downplaying the role of equality and indeed, modernity, within libertarianism. It may not be a part of the theory, but it is certainly part of the modern movement. I have met very few libertarians who don't praise universal suffrage as a huge step forward for liberty. They love Martin Luther King and first (and sometimes even second) wave feminism. Even now, look at Rand Paul's desire to re-enfranchise felons. What are they going to vote for? You know as well as I: more gibsmedat.
    Agreed, my only point is that this is not essential to libertarianism as an ideology.

    All physics professors could be leftists (most probably are), doesn't mean calculus is pro-choice.

    I see NRx as something that strips libertarianism of the modernist tumors it has grown, and adds some very necessary concepts: clear hierarchy, cultural identity, racial affinity, traditionalism, patriarchy etc. I don't think there needs to be a synthesis, because NRx is already the result of a synthesis of libertarianism and other, pre-modern schools of thought.
    The problem with the modern libertarian movement is that it's unrealistic. The ideal is sound, the way it's being pursued isn't. Anarchists need to become minarchists, minarchists need to reject democracy, and - further - realize that what constitutes minimal government depends on the time and place. As Moldbug said, government should be as small as possible - but no smaller. Under certain circumstances, the state is justified in pursuing policies which are prima facie unlibertarian, in order to avoid outcomes which are even worse from a libertarian perspective (as I was explaining above in relation to the best of the four articles). This is what neoreaction has to offer: it rejects anarchy, it rejects democracy, and it can teach libertarians that such seemingly unlibertarian things as established religion are potentially justifiable.

    Emphasis on potentially...

    ...which brings us to the problem with neoreaction.

    The best of the neoreaction, as exemplified in Moldbug, is libertarian at heart - they're seemingly unlibertarian proposals are justified by how they serve libertarian ends (or "pro-civilization" ends, as they're wont to say). This is in fact what puts the neo in neoreaction. As I said in the OP, where reaction gives us sentimental justifications for an established church (for instance), neoreaction gives us practical, utilitarian (effectively libertarian) justifications....or at least some of neoreaction does this. An increasing number of neoreactionaries seem to have reverted to mere reaction: no (sound) practical arguments in favor of their proposals, just a lot of romantic gobbledygook. This is especially obvious in the "ethno-nationalist" camp, which is pretty much just plain old white nationalism at this point. These people have forgotten (or never understood) the purpose behind this whole enterprise.

    So, by a synthesis, I mean this:

    If libertarians were to get realistic about means, and neoreactionaries were to remember what end they serve, these would in fact be one and the same ideology.

    P.S. For a movement that explores the potential practical benefits of theocracy, segregation, dictatorship et al, I suppose it's natural that you're going to attract some folks who like those things for their own sake - some religious fanatics, some irrational racists, some generally psychotic boot-lickers. In the same way, libertarianism, talking about the advantages of freedom, has drawn in some folks who are just generally hostile to authority, of any kind (incidentally, $#@! John Stuart Mill for planting that seed).
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 11-19-2015 at 03:19 AM.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If I were to give my own critique of neoreaction, I'd address Moldbug et al, as they're the best NRX has to offer - absolutely.

    But I was looking to rebut neoreactionary critiques of libertarianism, so that's what I searched for, and this is what turned up.
    Still, TRS is not where one should go. Radish had some interesting critiques of libertarianism and individualism, from a Evolian, traditionalist perspective.



    Agreed, my only point is that this is not essential to libertarianism as an ideology.

    All physics professors could be leftists (most probably are), doesn't mean calculus is pro-choice.
    No, that's not the same thing. Physics professors may be pro-choice, but they don't say that Roe v Wade was a good thing for physics. These libertarians say that universal suffrage, women's liberation, sexual libertinism, the Civil Rights movement etc are all good for libertarianism specifically, not just good in the abstract.





    The problem with the modern libertarian movement is that it's unrealistic. The ideal is sound, the way it's being pursued isn't. Anarchists need to become minarchists, minarchists need to reject democracy, and - further - realize that what constitutes minimal government depends on the time and place. As Moldbug said, government should be as small as possible - but no smaller. Under certain circumstances, the state is justified in pursuing policies which are prima facie unlibertarian, in order to avoid outcomes which are even worse from a libertarian perspective (as I was explaining above in relation to the best of the four articles). This is what neoreaction has to offer: it rejects anarchy, it rejects democracy, and it can teach libertarians that such seemingly unlibertarian things as established religion are potentially justifiable.
    That's interesting, because that is the exact reason I oppose immigration. Lets not derail this, though.



    Emphasis on potentially...

    ...which brings us to the problem with neoreaction.

    The best of the neoreaction, as exemplified in Moldbug, is libertarian at heart - they're seemingly unlibertarian proposals are justified by how they serve libertarian ends (or "pro-civilization" ends, as they're wont to say). This is in fact what puts the neo in neoreaction. As I said in the OP, where reaction gives us sentimental justifications for an established church (for instance), neoreaction gives us practical, utilitarian (effectively libertarian) justifications....or at least some of neoreaction does this.
    What you may be missing is that neoreaction has a much broader analysis than this. One of the best things NRx has done in my view, is show how the problems facing the West are spiritual as much as political or economic. If NRx was just a more realistic form of libertarian implementation, it wouldn't really offer much. Hoppe has already made the libertarian argument for monarchy, Moldbug refined it; why call NRx something separate from libertarianism at all if that's all it is? Moldbug was a jumping off point, built on by others. Neoreactionaries believe in values beyond the economic. A free market policy that might make goods cheaper, but drives a blade into the soul of a civilization is not worth it. Libertarian ideas are often pro-civilization, but not always. This is why Evola is so important in NRx. He had no idea about economic theory whatsoever, but his critiques of consumerist capitalism and atomistic individualism ring true, especially today.

    An increasing number of neoreactionaries seem to have reverted to mere reaction: no (sound) practical arguments in favor of their proposals, just a lot of romantic gobbledygook. This is especially obvious in the "ethno-nationalist" camp, which is pretty much just plain old white nationalism at this point. These people have forgotten (or never understood) the purpose behind this whole enterprise.
    I'm not a WN, but I think there's very good arguments for maintaining a European-descended hegemony in a civilization. I don't argue that it needs to be 100% white, but an immigration policy that maintains a dominant ethnic majority is good for all nations. Culture and race are important for civilization, and ethnic displacement will be a disaster for the US.

    So, by a synthesis, I mean this:

    If libertarians were to get realistic about means, and neoreactionaries were to remember what end they serve, these would in fact be one and the same ideology.
    I don't think that's at all true, for reasons outlined above.
    NeoReactionary. American High Tory.

    The counter-revolution will not be televised.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by ThePaleoLibertarian View Post
    Still, TRS is not where one should go. Radish had some interesting critiques of libertarianism and individualism, from a Evolian, traditionalist perspective.
    Would you post the links?

    I searched pretty thoroughly yesterday, and didn't find much beyond what I posted.

    No, that's not the same thing. Physics professors may be pro-choice, but they don't say that Roe v Wade was a good thing for physics. These libertarians say that universal suffrage, women's liberation, sexual libertinism, the Civil Rights movement etc are all good for libertarianism specifically, not just good in the abstract.
    That may be, but they're mistaken.

    What you may be missing is that neoreaction has a much broader analysis than this. One of the best things NRx has done in my view, is show how the problems facing the West are spiritual as much as political or economic. If NRx was just a more realistic form of libertarian implementation, it wouldn't really offer much. Hoppe has already made the libertarian argument for monarchy, Moldbug refined it; why call NRx something separate from libertarianism at all if that's all it is? Moldbug was a jumping off point, built on by others. Neoreactionaries believe in values beyond the economic. A free market policy that might make goods cheaper, but drives a blade into the soul of a civilization is not worth it. Libertarian ideas are often pro-civilization, but not always. This is why Evola is so important in NRx. He had no idea about economic theory whatsoever, but his critiques of consumerist capitalism and atomistic individualism ring true, especially today.
    I've read a lot of neoreactionary writing in that vein, and I'm afraid I'd have to put all of it under the heading "romantic gobbledygook."

    ...basically aesthetic arguments (i.e. expressions of personal preference for a world that looks a certain way), as opposed to anything practical.

    Now, as I've indicated, any kind of state action can potentially be justified on security grounds, but beyond that (maintaining the "soul" of a civilization...?), I don't see it.

    I'm not a WN, but I think there's very good arguments for maintaining a European-descended hegemony in a civilization. I don't argue that it needs to be 100% white, but an immigration policy that maintains a dominant ethnic majority is good for all nations. Culture and race are important for civilization, and ethnic displacement will be a disaster for the US.
    In these arguments, what is the ultimate purpose of maintaining a European majority?

    Again, in my experience, it's always a bit fuzzy, and seems to reduce to aesthetics.

    ...or bad economics (as if the presence of a less productive person injures a more productive person).
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 11-19-2015 at 04:28 AM.

  24. #21
    Another one:

    "Unless You're an Atom, Principled Libertarianism Is Not For You"

    http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/01/11/3024/

    What the libertarian gods would consider ideal is to recruit me as a principled libertarian, one whose commitment to libertarianism is grounded not in mere self-interest but in higher feelings like compassionate humanitarianism or belief in the absolute and eternal truth of libertarianism. You see, self-interest is a finicky thing, especially since short-run self-interest often conflicts with libertarianism. This fact is what explains the relative weakness of libertarianism in politics and why so many people choose to be statists—people who’ve traded their souls for filthy lucre—rather than libertarians.

    Consider the following scenario: a man has worked as a plumber for much of his life and is pretty good at his job. He makes a decent living, enough to support himself and his family. Additionally, he lives and works under a system of rules established by a government, one of those rules being a restriction on who can come into the country and settle there. This government is ostensibly democratic, allowing its subjects to express their opinions on matters of public concern and taking those opinions into account when formulating plans of action, but while our plumber friend regularly attends town hall meetings, has never taken a serious interest in politics.

    Until, that is, a movement springs up to loosen immigration restrictions. Proponents claim that plumbing repair costs too much on account of a small domestic supply of plumbers, while there are numerous would-be plumbers outside the country who are forbidden to immigrate. Lowering the cost of plumbing, they say, will improve everyone’s standard of living by freeing up resources currently tied up in the plumbing sector. Advocates produce detailed forecasts of economic conditions proving their case.

    Our plumber friend takes note of this proposal since it affects him personally. He examines the forecasts and finds that not only will his income shrink on account of falling prices for his services, but the general increase in living standards will not make up for this loss. On top of this, his daughter has recently come down with a serious illness, and his wife is already working in order to cover her medical costs. Even assuming generous family and friends, the plumber calculates that he will not be able to keep his house; he will have to move out of his neighborhood to one with more crime, fewer amenities, and worse schools for his children. In short, the plumber and his family will suffer greatly if the new immigration proposal is carried out.

    The prayer of the principled Libertarian, “The MARKET giveth, and the MARKET taketh away; blessed be the name of the MARKET,” is a little hard to swallow.

    Note that what is at issue is not the effects of the immigration proposal, whether it really would improve people’s lives in general or not, nor whether the plumber’s calculations are correct. What is at issue is what our friend does at the next town hall meeting when the proposal is brought up for discussion: does he keep quiet or stand and raise objection? Libertarianism commands the former; his dedication to his family commands the latter; which loyalty commands precedence?
    Any ethics which prohibits anyone from doing anything, i.e. any ethics other than “do as thou wilt,” necessarily requires people to sacrifice their own interests for the benefit of others, under one set of circumstances or another. That is what ethics is: an attempt to balance mutually exclusive desires.

    It’s an easy thing to say that you’re willing to make sacrifices for the sake of your principles; indeed, your principles don’t amount to much if you aren’t willing to sacrifice for them. It is quite another thing, however, to say that you will sacrifice the good of others for the sake of your principles. Still, when people come into conflict, someone’s pursuit of happiness must be thwarted. When hundreds of young men in the street start eying dozens of women, should we prioritize the good of many or of the few? There is no set of principles that will not require you to sacrifice someone’s good for another’s sake. The question is “Whom are you willing to sacrifice?”
    Every ethical system is an answer to this question.

    So let’s now consider the recent attacks in Germany and elsewhere. Libertarianism condemns these attacks because it condemns all sexual assault. So far so good, but what should be done in response to these attacks? I hope the gods won’t mind if I lapse briefly and ask what the government should do and what private citizens should do.

    Private citizens should arm themselves, travel in groups at night, and form mutual-protection organizations. They may also move to gated communities, hire private defense organizations to guard them, and actively exclude from their communities groups prone to criminal activity or whose presence would otherwise be disruptive.

    The government, on the other hand, should do the exact opposite. The police are already over-militarized and need to downsize; armed thugs roaming the streets at night is what we want to avoid; and the less the government inserts itself into the lives of its subjects the better. The government absolutely must not build walls around its territory, establish surveillance programs, or put restrictions on immigration. All of these measures might be wise when taken by private individuals, but when the government does them, they become oppressive and tyrannical.
    First, (pragmatic) libertarians aren't necessarily opposed to any of the aforementioned security measures. If libertarians are rejecting any particular security measure, it's on the basis of cost-benefit analysis (rooted in a desire to minimize property rights violations, whether for deontological or consequentialist [i.e. economic] reasons): one does not shut down NYC for a week to conduct an intensive house-by-house search for a purse-snatcher, does one?

    Second, as for the alleged contradiction (“X is fine when private individuals do it, but not when the government does it”), there isn't any. Is it contradictory to say that it's permissible for you to drive your car, but not for me to drive your car without your consent? In short, libertarians demand respect for property rights. Measures taken by individuals on a mutually voluntary basis are acceptable because they don't violate property rights; those same measures taken by the state are unacceptable (or at least requiring of further justification) because they do violate property rights.

    Bzzzt. It’s my attorneys again. The gods of libertarianism are calling off the negotiations. They don’t seem to think I’m taking this matter seriously; something about my tone puts them off. I must protest this injustice: anyone who proclaims that they are diligently plotting to take over the world and leave me alone as long as I follow all of their rules to the letter is worth taking seriously, especially on grave matters of public controversy. Some people just can’t take a joke, I guess.
    There would be something ironic in libertarians claiming to be proponents of freedom, while insisting that everyone follow their rules, if their conception of freedom meant absolute license, but it doesn't, so there isn't.

    When the government is unjustly out to get you, libertarianism is quite attractive. But unless you’re an atom, principled libertarianism is not for you. Like all Grand Philosophical Systems, libertarianism will keep you on track so long as you stick to certain paths but lead you astray when you go into territory for which it was not designed. Fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, cousins, even friends must all cast aside their personal ties whenever their ideology calls. If you must have a god, be sure to choose one which places next after himself family and people.
    Again, this is true of every actual or conceivable ideology (apart from “do as thou wilt”). For instance, protectionists demand that a man for whom immigrant labor would mean lower prices for the food he feeds his family sacrifice those benefits for the good of some stranger, who might be disemployed by said immigrant labor.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 01-23-2016 at 03:48 AM.

  25. #22
    No article to review at the moment, just a question I've been pondering for some time.

    Q. What's the origin of anti-capitalism on the right?

    The left's anti-capitalism is transparent; it's rooted in envy.

    The right's much less so. They talk about how "consumerism" undermines traditional values.

    Well, a cursory glance at the history of the last couple centuries does indicate a correlation between rising living standards and the decline of traditional values.

    But if this is causation, what's the mechanism?

    Bob upgrades from hamburger to steak --> Bob becomes atheist

    ?

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    No article to review at the moment, just a question I've been pondering for some time.

    Q. What's the origin of anti-capitalism on the right?

    The left's anti-capitalism is transparent; it's rooted in envy.

    The right's much less so. They talk about how "consumerism" undermines traditional values.

    Well, a cursory glance at the history of the last couple centuries does indicate a correlation between rising living standards and the decline of traditional values.

    But if this is causation, what's the mechanism?

    Bob upgrades from hamburger to steak --> Bob becomes atheist

    ?
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  27. #24
    ^^^I don't follow.

    Why would wanting a lot of military spending (which isn't characteristic of [neo]reactionaries anyway) mean opposition to free market capitalism?



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    ^^^I don't follow.

    Why would wanting a lot of military spending (which isn't characteristic of [neo]reactionaries anyway) mean opposition to free market capitalism?
    A pretty good breakdown:


    You see the alternative right in the news lately because with the rise of Donald Trump, we have seen that the “mainstream right” has become dominated by those who are good at compromise, not winning.

    Such things should be expected in any political system because when you set down rigid rules, the strategy required to win according to the rules replaces actual winning. This creates a selection matrix for those who are good at playing the System, not those who are going to push hard for goals outside of the system itself. From this condition arose the modern cuckservative who essentially embraces left-wing goals in order to get along with the other politicians who are, in effect, his coworkers.

    In response to this, the alternative right began as a cultural movement toward certain ideas and developed into an organ of truth-telling in a time of universal deceit. On the surface, it is a dissident movement against the conclusions of a corrupted system; underneath, it is an attack on the methods and values that allow such systems to perpetuate themselves when all sense and logic suggests their conclusions are wrong. The alternative right is a correction to our current political process as much as to its contemporary policies.

    As might be expected, “alternative right” is an umbrella term. It includes those who would otherwise identify as white nationalists, paleoconservatives, New Right, orthosphere, monarchist and anarcho-capitalist (including National Anarchist). There is no resolution as to the outcome of its ideas in the alternative right because it is a think tank for cultural change which wants to build momentum and clarity of vision before it selects specific proposals. You can see this in action over at Alternative Right or its spinoff, Radix Journal.

    The one thing the alternative right is sure about: classical liberalism of the equality plus free markets idea is not welcome. In fact, across the alternative right, the sense seems to be that “invisible hand” systems of this nature always produce what we currently have, which is mob rule with cynical low-quality corporations at the top. This outlook synthesizes right wing and left wing ideas, but more importantly, accurately describes the situation of our civilization as a human problem and not a political one. The bigger the mass, the lower the quality.
    more...
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  30. #26
    This is a bit different from the anti-capitalism I was talking about (which is focused on moral corruption), but let's investigate:

    The one thing the alternative right is sure about: classical liberalism of the equality plus free markets idea is not welcome.
    What equality?

    Laissez faire obviously precludes equality of wealth or social status.

    Laissez faire is an economic system, it has nothing to do with the form of government (democracy, monarchy, etc), so it has nothing to do with equality of political power.

    So what equality are they talking about?

    The only equality entailed by laissez faire is equality under the law: e.g. no one can steal (as opposed to: only red-heads can't steal).

    They object to that? Why?

    In fact, across the alternative right, the sense seems to be that “invisible hand” systems of this nature always produce what we currently have, which is mob rule with cynical low-quality corporations at the top.
    The first part I don't understand. How would laissez faire cause "mob rule"?

    What does that mean? Consumers determining which kinds of shoes are made, through their purchasing decisions, is "mob rule"? Or what?

    The second part, about corporate influence, is stock leftist anti-capitalism: "O noes the corporations will have too much power."

    ...except, as we all know, they have essentially no power at all. Natural monopolies/cartels don't work.

    Any power they have at present they have via the state (granting them monopolies/cartels, e.g.), not on their own.

    This outlook synthesizes right wing and left wing ideas, but more importantly, accurately describes the situation of our civilization as a human problem and not a political one. The bigger the mass, the lower the quality.
    How would [insert economic intervention] improve the "quality" (in what sense?) of the average person?

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    This is a bit different from the anti-capitalism I was talking about (which is focused on moral corruption), but let's investigate:



    What equality?

    Laissez faire obviously precludes equality of wealth or social status.

    Laissez faire is an economic system, it has nothing to do with the form of government (democracy, monarchy, etc), so it has nothing to do with equality of political power.

    So what equality are they talking about?

    The only equality entailed by laissez faire is equality under the law: e.g. no one can steal (as opposed to: only red-heads can't steal).

    They object to that? Why?



    The first part I don't understand. How would laissez faire cause "mob rule"?

    What does that mean? Consumers determining which kinds of shoes are made, through their purchasing decisions, is "mob rule"? Or what?

    The second part, about corporate influence, is stock leftist anti-capitalism: "O noes the corporations will have too much power."

    ...except, as we all know, they have essentially no power at all. Natural monopolies/cartels don't work.

    Any power they have at present they have via the state (granting them monopolies/cartels, e.g.), not on their own.



    How would [insert economic intervention] improve the "quality" (in what sense?) of the average person?
    Consumerism has led to the moral decay of the West (hence the butter reference). The alt-right believes that all action, both private and public, are in service to the "culture". Both freedom and free-markets have led to the state of the West as it stands. I'm not sure what is confusing about this. It's no different than fascism. But you can't say that cuz Godwin.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Consumerism has led to the moral decay of the West (hence the butter reference). The alt-right believes that all action, both private and public, are in service to the "culture". Both freedom and free-markets have led to the state of the West as it stands. I'm not sure what is confusing about this. It's no different than fascism. But you can't say that cuz Godwin.
    I know that's what they think, I want to know why they think that.

    food gets cheaper --> [...?...] --> atheism, premarital sex, adultery, etc

    ...Huh?

    If there is no reason, if it's just a big non sequitur, well alright, that too is a kind of answer to my question.

    But I was hoping there would be some underlying rationale to analyze.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I know that's what they think, I want to know why they think that.

    food gets cheaper --> [...?...] --> atheism, premarital sex, adultery, etc

    ...Huh?

    If there is no reason, if it's just a big non sequitur, well alright, that too is a kind of answer to my question.

    But I was hoping there would be some underlying rationale to analyze.
    The new right is a pseudo-intellectual movement.
    It goes something like this:

    1) I go to liberal arts college to study dross (as I am a pseudo-intellectual). Plus the hawt girls go there.
    2) I'm told that I am worthless due to my white-male-hetero-ness.
    3) I'm told that I'm raping a girl if my pupils dilate when looking at one.
    4) I'm told I'm a racist because I'm upset that a black dude is banging my girlfriend.
    5) I find a bunch of other butthurt white guys.
    6) We blame the status quo for creating a hostile environment from a formerly white-male dominated society.
    7) FREEDOM IS BAD BECAUSE BLACK GUYS ARE BANGING WHITE CHICKS.

    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  34. #30
    ^^^LOL

    I'd say that's a pretty good psychological explanation of the alt-right at large.

    Some of them are serious intellectuals (these being more in the neoreactionary sub-group), though, and it's their anti-capitalism which puzzles me.

    Ah well, I guess I'll remain puzzled, as there doesn't seem to be a rational explanation.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •