Has the libertarian moment ended and the nationalist-socialist moment begun?
Kevin Williamson suggested as much in a recent National Review article. Who can blame him? Ardent Sanders supporters got bernd when he endorsed Hillary ‘House of Cards’ Clinton and have flocked under Gary Johnson’s wing. The Libertarian Party candidate claims to be 73% similar to Bernie, citing his results from the isidewith.com political quiz. But his pandering to the left doesn’t end there – he said he was ‘open’ to the universal basic income subsidized by the state, baiting leftists into Googling him. But, from where does the draw to white nationalism emerge in libertarianism?
Libertarians have not just been courting the left; popular anarcho-capitalist bloggers Christopher Cantwell and Stefan Molyneux have been endorsing Trump for his regulated borders policy, among other things.
This is no surprise as many major anarcho-capitalist thinkers follow Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s view that regulated borders avoid the state committing forced integration on what is public property, i.e. an invasion; particularly when said immigration is to welfare and presents a demographic threat to the classical liberal cultures of the West.
But the ideal we should strive towards is private property rights, opposing the frequent violations of these by the state. Such a simple message, however, the chasm forming left and right in libertarianism reveals our failure to adhere to it consistently. Rather than focusing fire on the enemies of private property rights, libertarians have been jumping on the political scales and debating side issues. Nevertheless, this divide has highlighted the left as those at enmity with private property rights and has, if anything, attracted many of the alt-right to libertarianism.
I cannot judge those libertarians who began identifying primarily as alt-right because I am sympathetic to the patriarchal, culturist message of protecting our unique Western Civilization from sudden cultural changes and ever-frequent ideological attacks. As cultural Marxism continues to infiltrate and attack libertarianism, we have found natural common ground with old school conservatives. By our side, they have heard us berate the left’s whimsical rejection of Western, libertarian values and, in doing so, they have discovered they were libertarians all along without knowing it. So, for my dear alt-right brothers-in-arms, I present a libertarian argument for why private property rights are the best way to preserve the socio-biological factors which have given rise to more libertarian cultures in the West.
What are these factors?
In a nutshell: a relatively high average IQ, moderate levels of testosterone and psychopathy, and a libertarian cultural heritage. In The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, Ricardo Duchesne theorised that the libertarian and egalitarian aristocracies of the Indo-Europeans, from whom we Europeans are descended, produced the Western tradition of welcoming competition.
Their desire for glory and respect for peers made European kings no more than a first among equals with the rights of every free man respected by all. Indeed, even a king could be held accountable in another lord’s court for interfering in another’s property. The rest of the world, however, was filled with despots, often claiming to be a sun-god, always claiming the authority to tax farm, executing all who questioned their authority.
So, Europe developed many advanced stateless societies well into the late medieval period. That’s right, Europe is no stranger to extreme decentralization. The consequence of this was to preserve a higher level of testosterone and the psychopathic traits associated with sticking your neck out and not caring what anyone will say, i.e. a more individualistic and libertarian society.
This competitive streak produced an intellectually restless people, innovating the various schools of Greek philosophy and the scientific method etc.
None of which were able to develop in the Islamic or Chinese civilization despite their technological advances.
The Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment testify to the incompatibility of Eastern, dogmatic belief systems with the Indo-European desire to assert one’s own views, regardless of the social consequences. In contrast, the collectivist and obedient attitude of the Chinese is most likely the result of the early development of states which domesticated citizens by culling and demoting the more assertive for millennia. This would account for their lower levels of testosterone and signs of domestication (gracilization) in their skeletal structure.
All well and good, but where would the West’s libertarian spirit be without the development of a dominant, high IQ capitalist class?
According to the cold winter’s theory, East Asians and Europeans already had higher IQ’s in order to survive colder environments. But, just as trade promotes peace at a national level, a commercial society favours the genes of those individuals who are more sociable and trustworthy, not to mention those suited to hard and tedious work. Thus, Gregory Clark’s widely accepted theory, in A Farewell to Alms, is that the Anglo-Dutch economic miracle, which has been making the world a increasingly fun place to live for the past 300 years, was a result of our middle classes outbreeding the lower since the late middle ages. Furthermore, lower classes were routinely wiped out by plagues and diseases, meaning that downward social mobility replaced them with the survivors from higher classes, raising the overall IQ, work ethic and sense of familial responsibility.
A strong bourgeoisie grew, believing their home was their castle and, despite the development of statism, insisted their private property rights were respected.
Thus, the rise of classical liberalism.
These early libertarians had a millennia-long heritage of rational systems of ethics and law to build upon. Today, Hoppe has provided us the most definitive argument for these universally applicable, unconditional rights in his magnum opus, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property. The positive civil rights invented by the state, on the other hand, are always conditional and inevitably breach private property rights in their application.
For example, how can we say someone has a right to healthcare?
If Dr. House alone can diagnose someone on the other side of the world, should his private property rights be breached to force him to travel and heal that individual? But that is precisely what happens – when the state legislates rights, it is in fact a pretence to violate those rights already dictated by logic. Naturally, the left adores this practice, as it appears to legitimise the redistribution of wealth. But, if we hold fast our private property rights and our Western heritage, everything we hate about cultural Marxism can be stopped dead, especially the incentivising of welfare migrants.
Consider, if all publicly owned property were to be privatized, every individual would decide who was allowed on their private property. So, a natural system of immigration would emerge in which only skilled migrants who wanted to live in our Western culture would travel to jobs, excluding those who would only otherwise travel for welfare. Local workers would be found more readily for obvious reasons and, with no minimum wage, they wouldn’t be priced out by illegals. It would be the exception to import labour from abroad, keeping immigration at a natural and comfortable level for all. Not only would such a system be the most efficient way of resolving immigration problems, it would be a veneration of our Western values.