This may be one of your most important Substacks yet. Keep doing God’s work.

Expand full comment

Hands down one of your best articles yet. It's time the dissident right let's go of LARPing like it's 1930's Europe and adopt tactics that will actually WIN.

Expand full comment

How can libertarianism justify the persecution of prostitution? Doesn't a free woman have the right to earn money the way she chooses?

Expand full comment

I think that some sort of post-Hoppean liberty-through-authoirty perspective is probably going to be where we all end up if only because authority is Lindy.

Intellectually, the framework seems really sensible to me and seems to explain a lot of what we see in the world in a sort of simple way. Liberty isn't the driver of social order, but a reward for or consequence of it. So if you bring liberalism to Norway you get free people, if you bring it to Iraq everyone uses their newfound freedom to prosecute a drive-by on their tribal enemies.

Branding-wise it sucks though. We have bought this notion of authoritarianism that says centralized power and tyranny are oriented in the same direction very deeply. It's really hard to make argument that is effectively "you need to give me absolute power so that you can be more free."

Expand full comment

Anyone who so obsequiously supports Israel deserves our suspicion. Let’s not forget that Israel supports mass immigration of non-European cheap kabouters and refugees to Europe. Israel additionally plans on pushing Gazans into Europe and other Western countries.

I don’t like HAMAS at all, but I especially don’t like a country that wants to push HAMAS-type people into my country.

Expand full comment

Libertarianism cannot solve the white birth problem. Libertarians have no answer to this question. Some of you are at least honest enough to say this.

Libertarians choose to ignore some of the biological characteristics of different sexes/civilized races. In the freest societies and countries, the traditional family has not yet been broken, which has already happened to us. America was America, in part because Americans not crazy enough to think that women were equal and J were citizens. Freedom is the privilege of a moral society.

As for the good things in the libertarian box, such as expanding home education, we can get them without libertarianism. But we also need to somehow get twenty-year-old girls married. We don't need 19th century America, we need 19th century Australia.

Expand full comment

Amazing work. It is frustrating to hear people in the Dissident Right identify with liberty principles but mock them every chance they get out of fear that they’ll be labeled as the dreaded “lolbertarian”.

Expand full comment

Probably a lot of why libertarianism has a bad name is because of the scam perpetrated by banksters in which they furtively promote and benefit from the State via its monetary policy, taxpayer funded foreign interventionism, bank bailouts, endless regulations that only the bankster-controlled corporations can afford to comply with, etc., while they at the same time use faux-libertarianism as a shield to dodge responsibility for the costs of their schemes. Exhibit A: Alan Greenspan, who operated a state-backed bankster scam known as the Fed to enrich his friends while externalizing the costs onto everyone else, all while claiming to be an Ayn Rand libertarian any time the subject of regulating the banks or taxing capital gains came up. People see this hypocrisy of crying "socialism" when I want the State to act in a way that benefits me, while shouting "libertarian ideals" whenever the same State acts in a way I don't like. Grant Smith makes this point a lot, about the difference between the crony capitalism we have and a true free market. But as the State shows itself increasingly illegitimate, evil, corrupt, and criminally oppressive, maybe people will be willing to consider real libertarianism as a viable possibility.

Anyway, you make some solid, very thoughtful and thought-provoking points. Great essay, like always!

Expand full comment

I don't think libertarianism can be at the core of a state that can compete in the 21st century.

There would need to be at the very least a "genetic hygeine" aspect to ensure that the country was free of free-riders.

Free-market systems are also vulnerable to various kinds of nasty phenomena:

- Businesses that prey upon people with little foresight: e.g. liquor outlets, tobacco, payday loans.

- The emergence of guilds that end up controlling areas of the economy for their benefit, e.g. the US medical system. OTOH if you disallow self-regulation, you get quacks and frauds. The USA gets both ends of this actually, e.g. the supply of doctors is artificially limited, driving up prices, but also chiropractors are allowed.

- Monopolies; or quasi-monopolies that build a "moat" in some legal way.

And what would underpin the establishment of this system, on what do we build the legitimacy of the power structure? Who is "the people" on whose behalf all of this is done? Certainly the blacks and miscellaneous people unsuited to work will not vote for it. The replacement of whites has already advanced so far that some kind of white racial solidarity would be hard to achieve. What is to stop hidden or quasi-hidden groups such as the Jewish/Israel lobby riddling it with graft and hidden power structures, as they have done to America now?

Expand full comment

Lol this are bullshit. Libertardians are fellow travellers on open borders because borders are made by the state. Libertardians are fellow travellers on the Summer of love because policemen are agent of the state. Libertardians are responsible of all Big Industries because "muh free trade". Libertardians are sheep-dipped commies.

Exhibit A: your beloved Milei (that is Italian, non German, you retard) did not nuke the Central Bank but devaluated the peso: guess what? This is standard Keynesian economy. Cope and seeth, libertard.

Expand full comment

This anti-authority pro-tradition/ethnos ideology I see as more of a means to an end. I’m not against authority and government an sich, but I am against the current authority and government - because it’s a morally bankrupt, degenerate, and deracination-promoting moloch.

Ultimately, the chaos that arises from any form of revolution must be replaced with another set of rules and order. That is the nature of man.

If Milei is a libertarian, he’s a very strange one. Why? Dollarizing the Argentine economy is a strange move, given the guaranteed weakening of the petro-dollar in the next few decades. Being an advocate of “Noahide Christianity” in which “gentiles/goyim” are meant to obey Jewish-prescribed laws is another bizarre stance for a supposed libertarian.

I’m all for him shitting on wokism, destroying useless government bloat, and lowering taxes but we need to discuss his allegiances. Last thing, he has stated he wants completely open borders as long as welfare policies are restrictive and/or extremely limited. I disagree. Immigration can happen, but having “open borders” is nearly always a recipe for disaster in a country with a good standard of living, even if the welfare state is scrapped.

Expand full comment

Think you would get a lot from this: https://youtu.be/4XF0fR8ItH8?si=GRT7bJvdoqRMiCJa

Expand full comment

Love it. More please!

Expand full comment

An interesting thesis. Some truth, but not sufficiently compelling.

I write this as someone who was a hardcore Rothbardian for close to a decade and someone who create a Ron Paul meetup back in the day. I've personally met the guy who got in trouble minting Ron Paul silver dollars and some of my friends rode in the Ron Paul blimp.

Ron Paul himself was far more compelling than the Libertarian Party. I did the A-B test. Ron Paul attracted lots of hippie peaceniks and conspiracy theorists who would not support the Libertarian Party. But note that Ron Paul did not go full on anarcho-capitalist! And Dr. Paul is a sincere Christian.

So while the Mises Institute loves Dr. Paul, the [Rothbard] Mises Institute actually wants something much farther outside the Overton Window.

Unless you want to start shooting yesterday, you need to think about building a broader coalition -- perhaps with Ron Paul semi-libertarians as your Inner Circle. I've been pointing out potential Fellow Travelers with my Rule 8 posts. But for today I'd like to point out that there are arguments for national sovereignty that are compelling to consequentialist libertarians. Shopping for government is different from looting for government! Government services are not free! And a good constitution generally requires both education and the spilling of blood. Ergo, open borders are the equivalent of legalized shoplifting. Details in my latest post: https://rulesforreactionaries.substack.com/p/a-kinder-gentler-nationalism

Expand full comment

This is fantastic! I have been following and reading a bunch of the young reactionary right crowd (who I like quite a lot) , and I have trouble discerning from where their contempt for libertarianism comes. I consider myself to be broadly libertarian leaning along the way to anarchism. Like any ideological framework, it can be many things. But mostly it is a radical departure from the two-party statism that has reigned supreme, at least since the mid- to late 1800’s (see anarchist Lysander Spooner essays) and currently the only real ideological bulwark against progressive statism. Thanks for this.

Expand full comment

to your question, why?

the strongest intellectual part of the right at this point is paleo-conservativism (outside of tucker carlson it has next to no political or media representation), and paleocons have a critique of libertarianism and its very notion of freedom, also the negative unintended consequences of this false notion of freedom on traditional values. i find these arguments convincing. but patrick deneen, adrian vermeule, even bap, these sorts of figures are leading the right in a very different direction and it makes sense as a response to our culture where negative freedom has run amock.

Expand full comment