Category Archives: libertarianism

The Statist Mindset Of ‘Libertarians’ Garry Johnson & William Weld

Donald Trump, Law, libertarianism, Nationhood, Rights, The State, War

Gary Johnson and his sidekick William Weld, Libertarian Party goofballs, are running for president and VP, respectively. The two fulminated to CNN’s Victor Blackwell against Donald Trump. From the libertarian perspective, though, their mindset was much more statist and deferential to state structures than Trump’s.

Weld, in particular, went over the various policies Trump was proposing, voicing objections to each that were thoroughly statist.

WELD: Some of the stuff that he’s running on I think is absolutely chaotic. I’m going to do this to Mexico. OK, that’s a violation of the North American Free Trade agreement, which is the supreme law of the land. It is a treaty. We signed it. I’ll do this to China. No questions asked. OK, that’s a violation of the World Trade Organization rules [which good libertarians despise], exposing us, the United States, to sanctions. And we would be the rogue nation. I don’t think we want to be the rogue nation. You know? Let’s let North Korea be the rogue nation, not us.

Trump can’t do what he proposes because he’ll be in violation of this or the other agreement between states, national and international, which Weld treats as holy writ.

Not to real libertarians. The idea of radical freedom is to dissolve the chains with which others have bound us. Smashing or refashioning these agreements and reclaiming national, state and individual sovereignty, as Trump proposes, is more libertarian than the queasiness these two evince at such actions.

Johnson and Weld objected to Trump’s proposals on the statist grounds that renegotiating agreements or optimizing them for Americans would violate agreements that by their nature sideline the American people.

You don’t get more un-libertarian than that. Then there’s the viva Hiroshima attitude:

Will Trump Renege On This FIRST-DAY-IN-OFFICE Promise?

Donald Trump, Law, libertarianism, Morality, Ron Paul

I like this Donald Trump YouTube most. In it, the vintage old Trump promises to “terminate” or nullify laws passed through executive orders. It’s doable. But why do I no longer believe him? Trump has not thrown the liberty community a single liberty minded candidate. We want Ron Paul and yes, even little Rand in some official capacity, supervised by dad, will ameliorate statism.

The Trump act that’s hard to get beyond is his cruelty to Chris Christie. “Get on the pane and go Home. It’s over there. Go.” However self-serving Christie was being in endorsing Trump, Trump still owed him a deb of gratitude for exposing The Marcobot so brilliantly. Face it, Trump is not quick that way.

It’s hard to understand the joy the media took in this ugly open mic moment—and it’s not that I’m a fan of Christie’s; the opposite. Irrespective of the kind of person Christie is (and I’ve written mostly negatively about him); this cruelty reflects badly on Trump. But I’m too soft. I know.

Private Property Solves THE POTTY Problem

Gender, Individualism Vs. Collectivism, libertarianism, Private Property

First, one would hope that even creepy Ted Cruz would, like Donald Trump, open his home to Caitlyn Jenner, “reality-TV star and gold-medal-winning Olympian who competed as Bruce Jenner.”

Trump was right to rely on libertarian sensibilities when he said, on “The Today Show,” that in his Trump Tower, “Caitlyn Jenner would be free to use any bathroom she wanted.”

Trump Tower belongs to Trump.

Of course, the North Carolina bathroom law, that “bans people from using bathrooms that don’t match the sex indicated on their birth certificate,” demonstrates why government should not own any property and should certainly not have a say as to how private property is managed.

It ought to be up to private property proprietors to decide what kind of bathrooms they wish to offer at their establishments.

Myself, I’d avoid establishments that don’t offer strict, separate, “ladies” and “gents” loos. I don’t think it’s safe. Women-only bathrooms have worked quite well for women. You never have to think, “It’s late at night, I hope there’s no scary or creepy looking man in there and I am not allowed to carry.”

Scenes from “Dressed To Kill”:

Political Philosophy Is Not Like Sexual Orientation

Ilana Mercer, Labor, libertarianism, Paleoconservatism, Paleolibertarianism, Political Philosophy

Here’s my one reply to comments at The Unz Review about “The Curious Case of WND’s Vanishing, Veteran Paleolibertarian”:

Political philosophy is not like sexual orientation: You don’t just come out to the world, call yourself a thinker, and expect to be get embraced. You shouldn’t get away with that, although some try and succeed.

You do the bloody hard work, day-in, day-out. You write, you think; you get panned or praised; and you get up and do it again the next day.

You can’t just come out every day and proclaim, ‘I’m a perfect paleolibertarian, I believe everything Murray Rothbard said. Look at me, ain’t I neat, unlike Mercer,” not having written a coherent systematic sentence in your life.

And by systematic I mean, don’t just parrot the greats! The work involves, yes, applying the political philosophy as you see it to the political reality, doing it in fresh, new ways, without fear or favor.

You can’t sit on the fence, lazily, proclaiming your purity; forever suspended between what “is” and what “ought to be,” and revel in your immaculate conception (while throwing stones at me, as so many in this community have done).

In a word, you can’t be lazy, smug; an intellectual nullity that tears the hard-working down (love split infinitives).

As to The Mercer Image posted at The Unz Review: The editor organizes the page and the images on it; not the writer/myself. The Unz Review is a tightly edited website.

Why would anyone familiar with the ways of the press, print or pixels, imagine I posted a picture of myself at The Unz Review. Ridiculous!

The point of the essay is simple. My work over 2 decades (voluminous) speaks for itself. Good or bad.

It is systematic; it is paleolibertarian. Any scholar of substance would locate it squarely in the paleolibertarian tradition. Such a scholar might also distinguish a salient thing that sets this thought apart from some of those surveyed in the volume under discussion. As I wrote in defense of John Derb:

I cop to Western man’s individualist disdain—could it be his weakness?—for race as an organizing principle. For me, the road to freedom lies in beating back the state, so that individuals may regain freedom of association, dominion over property, the absolute right of self-defense; the right to hire, fire, and, generally, associate at will.

As for Israel: Why not ask the Ron Paul 2007 campaign why it commissioned a brief think piece from me and adhered to its tenets pretty well throughout the campaign—until someone likely told Paul that Mercer was un-kosher, and until someone instructed the campaign to quit calling on Mercer?

“Unshackling Israel,” mentioned in “Is Ron Paul Good For Israel?,” was commissioned by the Paul camp and repeated on the Paul campaign trail to good effect.

[SNIP]

The article under discussion: “The Curious Case of WND’s Vanishing, Veteran Paleolibertarian.”