Sign into an existing account

I just read something that reminded me of something else. It struck a chord with me such that I felt compelled to mention it to others. Because if not to everyone here, then to whom am I going to be able to mention it? Anyway, it needs a bit of explanation. Book excerpt time.

~:~

Libertarians contextualize all human activity as economic activity. This because the founders of the ideology were jews–merchants–who had come from a background of finance. They don’t recognize economic activity as a matter of culture and anthropology, so they can’t recognize that *non-monetary activity* has economic value. The ideological core of libertarianism is based on one–or both–of two fallacies:

1. Property rights are natural, transcendent or morally sacrosanct and outside of the realm of anthropological and sociological study.
2. All morality is essentially transactional. Consequently, economic exchange is a matter of morality, and morality is a matter of economic exchange.

These lies are upheld by everyone who advocates libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. It is impossible to say, *“It’s wrong to tax me to benefit other people,”* and not believe one or both of those things. The problem with libertarianism as an ideology is that it lacks a full two-thirds of what encompasses a system of belief. Libertarianism is an economic policy masquerading as a political ideology. Economy, society, and government comprise the range of ideological belief, but libertarianism is exclusively an economic school of thought. Economics alone does not a civilization make. Economically, libertarianism feels rather agreeable. *“A man is entitled to the sweat of his brow and the fruits of his labor.” “A man has no obligation–legal or moral–to strangers, nor to his neighbors–save such behaviors that would make them reciprocate and do well by him.”* This is why libertarians eschew government welfare programs for systems that would provide jobs to those otherwise on welfare so that they may provide for themselves. Libertarianism is most often characterized as being for a completely “free market”–ending all government subsidies and letting any business, no matter the size or category, fail if its practices lead to failure.

*But that is where libertarianism ends.* No special regard for social behaviors has been made, and so when libertarians in the political scene are forced to speak of social issues, their only reply is to copy their economic doctrines, change applicable words, and paste them into place… with disastrous results. First, it would destroy the nation. A nation is its people–its ethnic group–but libertarianism does not see race. It ignores biology and social psychology. Libertarianism cares only for “absolute efficiency” in a race to the bottom. Libertarianism sanctions any method whereby a product may be produced cheaply–such as importing to your nation millions of unskilled workers from other ethnic groups. They have translated their wholly free market economy into a wholly free market for the purchase of product. Any product. Under libertarianism, any drug of any sort would be available to anyone with enough currency to procure it, and the price of the drug would be dictated, of course, by the free market–meaning, as cheaply as it could be manufactured. Heroin, ecstasy, marijuana, morphine, vicodin–all drugs–available without script or restriction of quantity. All behaviors–sodomy, pederasty, pedophilia, bestiality–are acceptable. Sale of one’s children is acceptable. Private ownership of nuclear weaponry–as well as the raw materials to build and distribute such–legal. Libertarianism’s utter lack of regard for social protection makes it a nigh-suicidal ideology.

Governmentally, libertarianism fares slightly better, but even then its copying and pasting of doctrine leads to a political body that cannot effectively govern in any respect. Libertarians are often said to want “small government”–which, were it true, is a noble cause–but libertarianism demands virtually “private government,” which is definitionally oxymoronic. To give an example of libertarianism’s lack of government, a typical criticism in this aspect is, *“Who would build the roads?”* The US Constitution stipulates that the government must *“establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”* Government organization and implementation of national infrastructure falls under both defense and welfare. Regarding tranquility, libertarianism would remove all noise and behavioral ordinances, as that restricts freedom on a personal level (again, falling back to the absolute “free market” parody).

There are aspects of libertarianism which are commendable. In a broad sense, the desire for less centralized government control over economy, providence, and society are commendable. Most of today’s governments are, by the reckoning of America’s Founders, entirely totalitarian. However, libertarianism fails to comprehend that there *is* a healthy scope of government, and that general well-being is a charge of government itself. It fails in the one thing in which it purports to believe: the freedom of the individual to pursue success, protected–not from failure–but from the syndicates, cabals, and individuals who would seek to wrest his freedom from him.

~:~

That’s a lot of preface for a simple subject, but it’s the absolute most basic knowledge required to understand what I just read. There’s an old libertarian “proverb.” It’s purely satirical in nature, but it beautifully encapsulates the libertarian thought process as applied to society. I can’t remember where I first read it–I’m not its author–but an Internet search for its use pulls up exactly one result: Me, making reference to it, somewhere long ago.

>Get your fist out of my wallet and into my butt.

In the comments section of [this link](https://archive.vn/JoFkT), there are a few statements which encapsulate this “proverb.”

>**pierre delecto**: Should America dominate the world? After more than a century of trying, a trail of ruined nations and tens of millions of deaths later, the answer is obvious. America shouldn't even be dominating its own people.

>**Implied Violins**: We should have left the domination games in our own bedrooms.

>**pierre delecto**: Where they belong!

This is the essence of libertarianism. This is a subtle but poignant display of the proverb in action. Not satire. Not mocking. Genuine libertarian beliefs expressed without irony or, clearly, critical thought.

I now go to bed depressed. Further, that is.