The reason the third blood sister can't do what you suggest is because she was born a cripple. She may want to but she can't.
How do you organize people whose greatest ambition is to be left alone? The very act of organizing them necessarily violates their most cherished desire.
Reminds me of these red state counties which vote 95% Trump yet you look at their education boards and it's all Marxists and only Marxists. How can it be? How can it not be when the Marxists have fire in their chests whereas the 95% mass of Trumpists just want to be left alone.
Who among them would dedicate their entire lives to pushing ideology on children? None, not even one. That's why the third blood sister is a cripple. She may well be bloody-minded but if she can't walk, she can't walk.
You stop saying the highest good is being left alone, and instead thank the Gods that tyrants exist so there are people you can slaughter and take the stuff of guilt free.
Vast fortunes conveniently pre-arranged in the hands of Dragons waiting to be slain
My reply was intended to explain why the third blood sister never came through.
Lord Miles posted an online call for adventurers to take over an island and was met with interest by tens of thousands of people.
This unexpected hyper enthusiasm demonstrates that the dragon lair concept you propose is feasible, shockingly so.
But I have my doubts that libertarianism is a necessary or even useful ideological architecture for it.
The founders were freemasons who executed a domestic insurgency at French instigation. After the Seven Years War Britain had become so obscenely powerful that several European powers colluded to give Britain a haircut. Freemasonry was the chosen vehicle because it had ready made C3I.
When the wheel of history turns and the ruling regime falters power goes to an organization with functional C3I. Example: post Soviet "Russian" mafias.
The founders prevailed thanks to functioning C3I and foreign support, not ideology.
You have like most people including myself been infected to some degree by the perspective of equality present in the French Revolution, the founding fathers planned the country as a hierarchical state, being free of tax doesn’t mean being free of duty and responsibility. People want a stable society where they aren’t harassed, not just to be left alone. The difference between anarchy and fully realized libertarianism is the stabilizing presence of hierarchy. Anglo Saxon England had Karl’s along side freemen.
I used to object to collectivism in general, but these days I'd argue some forms of it are good. The ability of humans to work and identify as a group does expand our potential.
The problem is more related to people being too willing to permanently give up their freedom in exchange for temporary comfort.
We have reason to believe that the state that best knew how to balance Liberty, Equality and Fraternity was the Venetian Republic.
Freedom: home to trade and the press in a feudal world, thanks to elections, rotation of offices and written laws (Statuta). Magistrates were mostly unpaid, avoiding a bureaucratic caste.
Equality: aristocratic but legally equal for patricians and emerging merchants. Offices were assigned by lot or vote (Maggior Consiglio, Consiglio dei Dieci, Senato). The Doge saw his powers progressively reduced as Europe evolved towards enlightened despotism.
Fraternity: parish colleganze, Scuole Grandi, corporations and fondachi created networks of mutual aid and solidarity. Great state works united citizens in a shared project of common good.
These pillars, supported by cross-checks (rota, auditing, balancing magistracies), guaranteed Venice a thousand years of stability and prosperity.
We at Third Venetia believe it is essential to rediscover these parallels: by erasing the Venetian Republic from western history, we have discarded a model for balancing freedom, equality and fraternity. Let us recover its lessons to face the challenges of today.
You are an obscenely ignorant bum. The Pilalr of the Respiovega was the Tens, a secret state inquisition that defend the State Power of Taxation used to build stalinist project like the Murazzi or the cut of all fucking venetian rivers to avoid the dry-up/flood of Venice swamp. Stalin would fucking blush about venetian statolatria, in fact Veneto today is the most "red Tory" region of Italy.
The Golden Book was closed in the XIV century and open only to (try to) close the public debt by selling the right of vote.
The venetian oligarchy could not see anything but Venice, as Ruzante clearly explained in the Parlamento.
You at Third venezia are a grup of idiots that should read a fucking history book instead of sucking you own dicks...if you have one.
I think this delusional comment only needs a response on four points in case anyone comes across your inferences:
-the Council of Ten was not a secret organ and was not the body in charge of managing hydraulic and drainage works, neither in the lagoon nor in the rest of the Veneto State. The Inquisition was always run by the Church and the Republic together and the “lay” members of the Inquisition were not necessarily chosen by the Council of Ten.
-The Libro D'oro was not reopened to raise funds, you are confusing measures taken in a war economy with what was an organised institutional reform, i.e. its closure.
-Your quotation of Ruzante is completely invented and political criticism of the Venetian elites is not part of the content of his works.
-Today's Veneto region, together with Lombardy, is the main electoral basin of the liberal and conservative right, therefore not at all comparable with the Red Tories you cite.
- i wrote, litteraly "secret state inquisition that defend the State Power of Taxation used to build stalinist project" so i never stated (a) that it was secret in its existence but that its worked in secret (like the KGB, that it was a "secret police" although everybody knew it existed) (b) that it manages the idraulic works but that it "defend the State Power of Taxation" (since it is litteraly what I wrote) nor (c) that it was religious but that it was an inquistiorial instead of an accusatorial penal system; please manage better your gross reading deficit.
- ah so there was no "legally equal[ity] for patricians and emerging merchants" since "emerginc" merchant could not vote since there was a closure of the electoral roll (in fact, there was a whole class of beggar nombles, the Barnabotti, that litterally sold their vote since they were in the Libro d'Oro regardless their whealth): thanks for conceding my point;
- Ruzante litterally wrote the Parlamento as a satire of the venetians' fear of the same plebian masses that raise in its defence because they prefer to lose than recognize those "parish colleganze, Scuole Grandi, corporations and fondachi created networks of mutual aid and solidarity. Great state works united citizens in a shared project of common good" to the Stato da Tera dwellers - funnily enough, the same thing happeneed with the Pasque Veronesi;
- Regione del Veneto is a true Red Tory state, try reading its budget that is worse than Emilia Romagna one; in fact, two days ago, a huge political quarrels happende since Zaia (the Doge, you know) cut the healthcare founding to private providers to appease its socialist base (something quite understandable since Venice was a stalinist enterprize, from the state-organized muda to the state-organized idraulic works); and not make me start about Zaia push for vaxxism, trannism and state mandate suicide.
But you were right on one thing: I was delusional in expecting you had an IQ high enough to understand.
A particularly individualist form of liberty generally defines modern libertarianism, and so this essay discusses, if obliquely, some other kind - perhaps, to employ the same framework, a _fraternal_ liberty, with the internal reciprocal obligations, and thus interior NAP-violations, such implies.
Individual liberty is the correct foundation upon which to build more complex structures. It's always supposed to be a starting point, not an end goal. The ability of the individual to separate himself from higher social structures is essential, but he's not supposed to remain separated.
Liberty inheres to the entity with the means of enforcing that particular degree of freedom, and dimension of maneuver. Before Man was Man, and he grew as an island, entirely autarkic, perhaps individual liberty was matched with capability, as both were minimal. However, now, after that bootstrapping phase, our abilities - whether wielded at the scale of one, or of multiple - are a function of self and associates. We are a group first, that then gives rise to new members one at a time, and this should not be conflated with independent components electing to form a complex. The collective is, causally, prior - it then grants, to some extent (and a well-balanced amount is a measure of health) _primacy_ to the individual. This is one of the fundamental exchanges establishing the reciprocity of obligation, of duties, between cell and superorganism.
I took this as less of an argument for libertarianism, and more of an argument for the natural law of might makes right. I can see that you acknowledge that reality, but this does in fact contradict libertarian ethics. If you aren't willing to impose your will on others, others will impose their will on you. That is not libertarian. Libertarianism tell us to not impose our will on others, it says that it's inherently immoral to do so. But that line of thinking is not long for this world.
One: we Alaskans don't want your trash; we have too much of our own. You deal with it. Build your gulags elsewhere.
Two:
"That no free man exists in America except those who already consciously see themselves in the state of war..."
You have always been at war. Your life of safe and comfortable things has always been an illusion. We tell ourselves bedtime stories to create a psychic bandage to cover this fact: we are always, have always been, and always WILL BE at war.
That is the price of survival.
That we have for many, many decades pretended otherwise is only a demonstration of human's innate ability to disbelieve uncomfortable things. Our bedtime stories are tales like 'we have a representative gubbamint' and 'we have to pay our fair share,' whatever that is. We tell ourselves it's about Rights and Liberty and Stuff, when, in fact, it's about who can bring overwhelming lethal force to bear. The cops are the State's first lethal-force response; we bandage them in tales of being 'good men' and 'only doing their jobs' and 'enforcing the laws we all agree upon through our representative gubbamint.
Horseshit.
Cops kill, cripple, and incarcerate far too many innocent people to be 'good men.'
Soldiers are the state's second lethal-force response. BE GOOD, whatever that means at the moment, or we will send in duh Nashunnal Gaard! Those clowns have less training than the cops and are equipped with machine guns!
There's a formula for a disaster.
We are told stories to make living under the tyrants more tolerable, to make us compliant in the tyranny, to get along because that's safer and easier and more profitable for all. But put a toe out of line, just get the attention of the Big Machine and see what comes your way. They'll spend tens of millions to enforce one of their edicts in even the most questionable cases. So, to avoid this brutal fact, we tell ourselves things to make it easier to live like this.
Just like the stories we tell about our farms... little red barns, a guy in overalls, ducks and geese and chickens wandering the yard. The Farm That NEVER Was, that's what that is.
We live off the dead bodies of plants and animals. We bandage our sensitive psyches against that too...we sell dead animal body parts under shiny plastic, we grind them up or put the bits into sausage-casing. We skin them so you don't have to see what beautiful creatures they were. No one wants the guilt trip induced by looking upon the reality of the animals we kill. One can now go one's whole life without ever having to kill with one's own hands. You should feel badly for what you eat. That too is part of the price of survival.
We live under the subjugation of a vast organized violence machine. We are the losers in this fight and go along with it for whatever reasons, living as prisoners of the violence machine. We are the POWs who lost the fight. We get benefits from our captors for being 'gooder' prisoners... but we are still POWs.
The real problem with Libertarianism is this: it's the religion of Don't-Bother-Mes. The Don't-Bother-Me is a person who doesn't bother others, wants that same in return. The rub is this: you cannot be all about not bothering the other guys while organizing a mass-movement whose sole goal is to get your way. If your way is to not bother others, you cannot get it by going around bothering those others into compliance with your not-botherliness.
Libertarianism sorts against the personality types necessary to lead it, to make it a mass movement.
Libertarianism is self-defeating under all but a tiny, narrow band of circumstances.
The Third Demonsess will take a different raiment; she will not truly be Libertarian. Perhaps she will wear Libertarian clothing, but at her core will be the same need to violently dominate and destroy.
Who are we to say this is wrong; our History is a river of blood.
Perhaps it is for the best we live endlessly at war. I prefer that to being a POW in the modern mold.
Thought-provoking ( provocatively so! ) piece; heart quickened, mind raced ; euphoric sensations...then, embarrassment, then prayer, that another path is not only possible, but is emerging (i.e. crypto, decentralization, internal rot of the State, dying MSM, home-schooling's ascent, resurgence of Faith, and more.
Wonderfully wel expressed as always. And I'm sick of all the polite rapes imposed on us all by those who more than most decry physical violence, or even just bad manners.
There is also another perspective on 'Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite' however. While most would like to see those principles flourish in a more genuine way, the challenge has always been a lack of clarity about where each of the three noble principle should apply and specifically where each should not. Going down that road leads to some very profound places and possibilities.
You have nothing useful to say about these things because you are a pseudo pagan and an atheist. More properly, you have no standing to make any of these criticisms, because there is no difference between your worldview and those of the people who are responsible for this situation.
The Left-Anarchists already went there well over a century ago, taking up arms and engaging in insurrection and terrorism in the name of ultimate liberty. The result? They always ended up getting shot by their fellow leftists (for being the wrong kind of leftist) or anti-leftists (for being leftists).
The left anarchists didn't abandon equality for liberty.
Fascism is Fraternity without freedom or equality.
Communism is Equality without freedom or fraternity.
Liberty without eqaulity or fraternity... Just hasn't appeared. If it did most people would call in fascism mixed with communism, since it would have the violent anti-fraternity of communism and the violent anti-egalitarianism of Fascism.
comfort is the enemy of action. those revolutions took place because the option to turn on the netflix or sportsball and go back into a mindless stupor didn't exist. people were forced into a kill or be killed situation. that is what must take place in america, the land of gun and revolution fetishization where the biggest proponents of frontier justice drink beer and watch tv until they gracelessly expire from diabetes rather than honorable on a field of battle. everyone is still far too comfortable. to crash the system until mass suffering occurs, you must engage in welfare scams, you must cheat on taxes, and you must commit crime, and all those other things that you are in principle against, you must do, at the expense of your countrymen, because if your neighbor pays his taxes, they are already collaborators and are fair game.
Libertarianism is ultimately self defeating as a mass movement for reasons explained in these comments. If it were somehow okay with cohersive violence (as all successful ideologies have been) and was just “kill all government workers because they’re thieves” you might start cooking with gas in the short term. If you against all odds somehow win, the issue then becomes the fact that you simply require the managerial class to organize mass society as currently configured. To change this you’d need to radically reorganize society in ways that people with libertarian beliefs might not like in practice.
A deprofessionalization to mirror earlier dearistrocratization and dekulakization
Libertarianism is not anarchism, it is minarchism. A necessary balancing of principles with reality, morality, and humanity. What the article proposes is anarchism, which has always been, and will always be, as blood-soaked a utopian ideology as communism. Minarchy isn’t as simplistic as that.
Of course, current “movement” libertarians are almost without exception useless, for a variety of reasons. But don’t make the mistake of taking a necessarily human thing like “how should we best organize our societies” to a an intellectual/logical conclusion - that way lies mass graves.
The reason the third blood sister can't do what you suggest is because she was born a cripple. She may want to but she can't.
How do you organize people whose greatest ambition is to be left alone? The very act of organizing them necessarily violates their most cherished desire.
Reminds me of these red state counties which vote 95% Trump yet you look at their education boards and it's all Marxists and only Marxists. How can it be? How can it not be when the Marxists have fire in their chests whereas the 95% mass of Trumpists just want to be left alone.
Who among them would dedicate their entire lives to pushing ideology on children? None, not even one. That's why the third blood sister is a cripple. She may well be bloody-minded but if she can't walk, she can't walk.
How did they organize the founders?
You stop saying the highest good is being left alone, and instead thank the Gods that tyrants exist so there are people you can slaughter and take the stuff of guilt free.
Vast fortunes conveniently pre-arranged in the hands of Dragons waiting to be slain
My reply was intended to explain why the third blood sister never came through.
Lord Miles posted an online call for adventurers to take over an island and was met with interest by tens of thousands of people.
This unexpected hyper enthusiasm demonstrates that the dragon lair concept you propose is feasible, shockingly so.
But I have my doubts that libertarianism is a necessary or even useful ideological architecture for it.
The founders were freemasons who executed a domestic insurgency at French instigation. After the Seven Years War Britain had become so obscenely powerful that several European powers colluded to give Britain a haircut. Freemasonry was the chosen vehicle because it had ready made C3I.
When the wheel of history turns and the ruling regime falters power goes to an organization with functional C3I. Example: post Soviet "Russian" mafias.
The founders prevailed thanks to functioning C3I and foreign support, not ideology.
What the fuck is C3I and how do we just kill the buttfaggot mafias?
Command, Control, Communications and intelligence
The founders were, frankly, a bunch of rich dudes who wanted to run America themselves. Liberty was a convenient excuse for them.
So, be a Theseus and go hunting some monsters to make a name for himself?
You have like most people including myself been infected to some degree by the perspective of equality present in the French Revolution, the founding fathers planned the country as a hierarchical state, being free of tax doesn’t mean being free of duty and responsibility. People want a stable society where they aren’t harassed, not just to be left alone. The difference between anarchy and fully realized libertarianism is the stabilizing presence of hierarchy. Anglo Saxon England had Karl’s along side freemen.
> It is for this reason that, inspite of everything, I can't quite bring myself to stop identifying as a "libertarian"
I can relate very strongly to this. I hate with a passion what libertarianism has become, but the core principles are too beautiful to abandon.
Libertarian has been subverted, repurposed and run into the ground...
Same as conservatism, it's followers were too willing to play by the rules. And that allowed our enemies to Alinsky us.
To conserve common sense, have a small government, maximum freedom, and remove taxation. That was why people voted for them.
The Conservatives have become a socialist light, pretending to be something else...
Conservatives used to pretend to arc back to that smal gov feeling.... before going full globalist stooge.
All major political movements have been coopted or destroyed.
The collectivist parasite zombifies everything in its path of destruction.
I used to object to collectivism in general, but these days I'd argue some forms of it are good. The ability of humans to work and identify as a group does expand our potential.
The problem is more related to people being too willing to permanently give up their freedom in exchange for temporary comfort.
Its why we are leaving the ideological era
I think Conservatism or atleast the American flavor of it was always disingenuous since Barry Goldwater.
Beautiful article!
We have reason to believe that the state that best knew how to balance Liberty, Equality and Fraternity was the Venetian Republic.
Freedom: home to trade and the press in a feudal world, thanks to elections, rotation of offices and written laws (Statuta). Magistrates were mostly unpaid, avoiding a bureaucratic caste.
Equality: aristocratic but legally equal for patricians and emerging merchants. Offices were assigned by lot or vote (Maggior Consiglio, Consiglio dei Dieci, Senato). The Doge saw his powers progressively reduced as Europe evolved towards enlightened despotism.
Fraternity: parish colleganze, Scuole Grandi, corporations and fondachi created networks of mutual aid and solidarity. Great state works united citizens in a shared project of common good.
These pillars, supported by cross-checks (rota, auditing, balancing magistracies), guaranteed Venice a thousand years of stability and prosperity.
We at Third Venetia believe it is essential to rediscover these parallels: by erasing the Venetian Republic from western history, we have discarded a model for balancing freedom, equality and fraternity. Let us recover its lessons to face the challenges of today.
You are an obscenely ignorant bum. The Pilalr of the Respiovega was the Tens, a secret state inquisition that defend the State Power of Taxation used to build stalinist project like the Murazzi or the cut of all fucking venetian rivers to avoid the dry-up/flood of Venice swamp. Stalin would fucking blush about venetian statolatria, in fact Veneto today is the most "red Tory" region of Italy.
The Golden Book was closed in the XIV century and open only to (try to) close the public debt by selling the right of vote.
The venetian oligarchy could not see anything but Venice, as Ruzante clearly explained in the Parlamento.
You at Third venezia are a grup of idiots that should read a fucking history book instead of sucking you own dicks...if you have one.
I think this delusional comment only needs a response on four points in case anyone comes across your inferences:
-the Council of Ten was not a secret organ and was not the body in charge of managing hydraulic and drainage works, neither in the lagoon nor in the rest of the Veneto State. The Inquisition was always run by the Church and the Republic together and the “lay” members of the Inquisition were not necessarily chosen by the Council of Ten.
-The Libro D'oro was not reopened to raise funds, you are confusing measures taken in a war economy with what was an organised institutional reform, i.e. its closure.
-Your quotation of Ruzante is completely invented and political criticism of the Venetian elites is not part of the content of his works.
-Today's Veneto region, together with Lombardy, is the main electoral basin of the liberal and conservative right, therefore not at all comparable with the Red Tories you cite.
Please go back to Facebook.
Ah, lovely:
- i wrote, litteraly "secret state inquisition that defend the State Power of Taxation used to build stalinist project" so i never stated (a) that it was secret in its existence but that its worked in secret (like the KGB, that it was a "secret police" although everybody knew it existed) (b) that it manages the idraulic works but that it "defend the State Power of Taxation" (since it is litteraly what I wrote) nor (c) that it was religious but that it was an inquistiorial instead of an accusatorial penal system; please manage better your gross reading deficit.
- ah so there was no "legally equal[ity] for patricians and emerging merchants" since "emerginc" merchant could not vote since there was a closure of the electoral roll (in fact, there was a whole class of beggar nombles, the Barnabotti, that litterally sold their vote since they were in the Libro d'Oro regardless their whealth): thanks for conceding my point;
- Ruzante litterally wrote the Parlamento as a satire of the venetians' fear of the same plebian masses that raise in its defence because they prefer to lose than recognize those "parish colleganze, Scuole Grandi, corporations and fondachi created networks of mutual aid and solidarity. Great state works united citizens in a shared project of common good" to the Stato da Tera dwellers - funnily enough, the same thing happeneed with the Pasque Veronesi;
- Regione del Veneto is a true Red Tory state, try reading its budget that is worse than Emilia Romagna one; in fact, two days ago, a huge political quarrels happende since Zaia (the Doge, you know) cut the healthcare founding to private providers to appease its socialist base (something quite understandable since Venice was a stalinist enterprize, from the state-organized muda to the state-organized idraulic works); and not make me start about Zaia push for vaxxism, trannism and state mandate suicide.
But you were right on one thing: I was delusional in expecting you had an IQ high enough to understand.
A particularly individualist form of liberty generally defines modern libertarianism, and so this essay discusses, if obliquely, some other kind - perhaps, to employ the same framework, a _fraternal_ liberty, with the internal reciprocal obligations, and thus interior NAP-violations, such implies.
Individual liberty is the correct foundation upon which to build more complex structures. It's always supposed to be a starting point, not an end goal. The ability of the individual to separate himself from higher social structures is essential, but he's not supposed to remain separated.
Liberty inheres to the entity with the means of enforcing that particular degree of freedom, and dimension of maneuver. Before Man was Man, and he grew as an island, entirely autarkic, perhaps individual liberty was matched with capability, as both were minimal. However, now, after that bootstrapping phase, our abilities - whether wielded at the scale of one, or of multiple - are a function of self and associates. We are a group first, that then gives rise to new members one at a time, and this should not be conflated with independent components electing to form a complex. The collective is, causally, prior - it then grants, to some extent (and a well-balanced amount is a measure of health) _primacy_ to the individual. This is one of the fundamental exchanges establishing the reciprocity of obligation, of duties, between cell and superorganism.
I took this as less of an argument for libertarianism, and more of an argument for the natural law of might makes right. I can see that you acknowledge that reality, but this does in fact contradict libertarian ethics. If you aren't willing to impose your will on others, others will impose their will on you. That is not libertarian. Libertarianism tell us to not impose our will on others, it says that it's inherently immoral to do so. But that line of thinking is not long for this world.
One: we Alaskans don't want your trash; we have too much of our own. You deal with it. Build your gulags elsewhere.
Two:
"That no free man exists in America except those who already consciously see themselves in the state of war..."
You have always been at war. Your life of safe and comfortable things has always been an illusion. We tell ourselves bedtime stories to create a psychic bandage to cover this fact: we are always, have always been, and always WILL BE at war.
That is the price of survival.
That we have for many, many decades pretended otherwise is only a demonstration of human's innate ability to disbelieve uncomfortable things. Our bedtime stories are tales like 'we have a representative gubbamint' and 'we have to pay our fair share,' whatever that is. We tell ourselves it's about Rights and Liberty and Stuff, when, in fact, it's about who can bring overwhelming lethal force to bear. The cops are the State's first lethal-force response; we bandage them in tales of being 'good men' and 'only doing their jobs' and 'enforcing the laws we all agree upon through our representative gubbamint.
Horseshit.
Cops kill, cripple, and incarcerate far too many innocent people to be 'good men.'
Soldiers are the state's second lethal-force response. BE GOOD, whatever that means at the moment, or we will send in duh Nashunnal Gaard! Those clowns have less training than the cops and are equipped with machine guns!
There's a formula for a disaster.
We are told stories to make living under the tyrants more tolerable, to make us compliant in the tyranny, to get along because that's safer and easier and more profitable for all. But put a toe out of line, just get the attention of the Big Machine and see what comes your way. They'll spend tens of millions to enforce one of their edicts in even the most questionable cases. So, to avoid this brutal fact, we tell ourselves things to make it easier to live like this.
Just like the stories we tell about our farms... little red barns, a guy in overalls, ducks and geese and chickens wandering the yard. The Farm That NEVER Was, that's what that is.
We live off the dead bodies of plants and animals. We bandage our sensitive psyches against that too...we sell dead animal body parts under shiny plastic, we grind them up or put the bits into sausage-casing. We skin them so you don't have to see what beautiful creatures they were. No one wants the guilt trip induced by looking upon the reality of the animals we kill. One can now go one's whole life without ever having to kill with one's own hands. You should feel badly for what you eat. That too is part of the price of survival.
We live under the subjugation of a vast organized violence machine. We are the losers in this fight and go along with it for whatever reasons, living as prisoners of the violence machine. We are the POWs who lost the fight. We get benefits from our captors for being 'gooder' prisoners... but we are still POWs.
The real problem with Libertarianism is this: it's the religion of Don't-Bother-Mes. The Don't-Bother-Me is a person who doesn't bother others, wants that same in return. The rub is this: you cannot be all about not bothering the other guys while organizing a mass-movement whose sole goal is to get your way. If your way is to not bother others, you cannot get it by going around bothering those others into compliance with your not-botherliness.
Libertarianism sorts against the personality types necessary to lead it, to make it a mass movement.
Libertarianism is self-defeating under all but a tiny, narrow band of circumstances.
The Third Demonsess will take a different raiment; she will not truly be Libertarian. Perhaps she will wear Libertarian clothing, but at her core will be the same need to violently dominate and destroy.
Who are we to say this is wrong; our History is a river of blood.
Perhaps it is for the best we live endlessly at war. I prefer that to being a POW in the modern mold.
Thought-provoking ( provocatively so! ) piece; heart quickened, mind raced ; euphoric sensations...then, embarrassment, then prayer, that another path is not only possible, but is emerging (i.e. crypto, decentralization, internal rot of the State, dying MSM, home-schooling's ascent, resurgence of Faith, and more.
Wonderfully wel expressed as always. And I'm sick of all the polite rapes imposed on us all by those who more than most decry physical violence, or even just bad manners.
There is also another perspective on 'Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite' however. While most would like to see those principles flourish in a more genuine way, the challenge has always been a lack of clarity about where each of the three noble principle should apply and specifically where each should not. Going down that road leads to some very profound places and possibilities.
Brief introduction to the theme here:
https://michaelwarden.substack.com/p/the-failed-mantra-of-the-french-revolution
And a little more detail here:
https://michaelwarden.substack.com/p/beyond-the-separation-of-powers
More posts and a substantial and wide-ranging book coming later!
Following for more, thank you!
You have nothing useful to say about these things because you are a pseudo pagan and an atheist. More properly, you have no standing to make any of these criticisms, because there is no difference between your worldview and those of the people who are responsible for this situation.
That's not even an argument.
I'll give you another chance. Produce an argument with substantive content
It’s the ultimate argument. It’s already over for you.
Oh man you really showed him by painting him as the soy wojak
““Property is theft” “Liberty in our lifetime” “Government is a criminal organization””
Did you mean “Taxation is theft”?
Fixed
Tar and feathers. Whiskey rebellion.
The Left-Anarchists already went there well over a century ago, taking up arms and engaging in insurrection and terrorism in the name of ultimate liberty. The result? They always ended up getting shot by their fellow leftists (for being the wrong kind of leftist) or anti-leftists (for being leftists).
The left anarchists didn't abandon equality for liberty.
Fascism is Fraternity without freedom or equality.
Communism is Equality without freedom or fraternity.
Liberty without eqaulity or fraternity... Just hasn't appeared. If it did most people would call in fascism mixed with communism, since it would have the violent anti-fraternity of communism and the violent anti-egalitarianism of Fascism.
comfort is the enemy of action. those revolutions took place because the option to turn on the netflix or sportsball and go back into a mindless stupor didn't exist. people were forced into a kill or be killed situation. that is what must take place in america, the land of gun and revolution fetishization where the biggest proponents of frontier justice drink beer and watch tv until they gracelessly expire from diabetes rather than honorable on a field of battle. everyone is still far too comfortable. to crash the system until mass suffering occurs, you must engage in welfare scams, you must cheat on taxes, and you must commit crime, and all those other things that you are in principle against, you must do, at the expense of your countrymen, because if your neighbor pays his taxes, they are already collaborators and are fair game.
Libertarianism is ultimately self defeating as a mass movement for reasons explained in these comments. If it were somehow okay with cohersive violence (as all successful ideologies have been) and was just “kill all government workers because they’re thieves” you might start cooking with gas in the short term. If you against all odds somehow win, the issue then becomes the fact that you simply require the managerial class to organize mass society as currently configured. To change this you’d need to radically reorganize society in ways that people with libertarian beliefs might not like in practice.
A deprofessionalization to mirror earlier dearistrocratization and dekulakization
Libertarianism is not anarchism, it is minarchism. A necessary balancing of principles with reality, morality, and humanity. What the article proposes is anarchism, which has always been, and will always be, as blood-soaked a utopian ideology as communism. Minarchy isn’t as simplistic as that.
Of course, current “movement” libertarians are almost without exception useless, for a variety of reasons. But don’t make the mistake of taking a necessarily human thing like “how should we best organize our societies” to a an intellectual/logical conclusion - that way lies mass graves.
jfg made a comment about parasites that is apt and very relevant to this
Do you have a link, by chance?
https://x.com/JFGariepy/status/1926137547882684866
it was on X less than a week ago