On Libertarianism and Statecraft, Part VII: Libertarian Philosophy and Social Contract

<<<Part VI                                                                                             Part VIII>>>

Author’s note: The main themes of this series are further expounded upon in my book Anarcho-Monarchism, which you can buy here.

Introduction

The frame in which the modern libertarian movement sees the world is a combination of individualist anarchism and classical liberal thought. This in itself is excusable, as the classical liberals and individualist anarchists were major influences in the development of libertarianism. However, framing libertarianism by these principles also results in serious problems. Our theory is subject to the suppositions of opposing theories.

Freedom for Freedom

An idea that is largely derivative from the individualist anarchists is the libertarian claim that the superiority of our ideology is due to the fact that we want freedom for the sake of freedom. However, this originates from the socialistic individualist anarchists, and as such we must realize the incompatibility of this notion of freedom with the libertarian philosophy. For the most pertinent example, no proper libertarian would support the freedom to violate private property rights. The guiding principles of our philosophy are self-ownership, non-aggression, and private property rather than freedom itself.

It is also not the case that libertarians unconditionally endorse private property. We may tacitly support the right of communists to form communes on their own property, but we do not actively endorse such uses of private property. This means that libertarians also have a philosophy when it comes to the use of private property. Libertarians do not only want a system of private property, but private property that is put to efficient uses. To say that libertarians want freedom for the sake of freedom is to ignore libertarian theory and to imply that libertarians subscribe to suppositions that they, in actuality, do not hold.

Furthermore, nothing in libertarian theory implies that we should have any respect for social freedom beyond what private property rights require. Hedonism, nihilism, degeneracy, and other high time preference behavior must be avoided if there is to be a sustainable libertarian social order. This requires restricting some actions in the social realm. Thus, favoring social freedom is not necessarily a desirable libertarian position. Libertarian theory only makes statements about the ownership of private property and what a person can do on their private property. People should have full rights to the property that they rightfully own. However, people can also use their property to take on duties and social responsibility.

Social freedom only exists in libertarianism insofar as a person is confined to their own property with no responsibility to a society. Most people want those in their society to be responsible, and most also want to be responsible to their society. Thus, social freedom becomes an irrelevant concept. Social responsibility can be institutionalized within a system of formal governance to manage the society. To take a relatively uncontroversial example within the libertarian sphere, a society could ban adults from yelling at children to prevent future crime and social disarray. The society could enforce this agreement by previously agreed upon penalties.

Property Itself

Since all forms of freedom within libertarianism are superseded by property, libertarianism as a discipline focuses on the results of property. This is the so-called ‘thin libertarianism’ and the only current philosophically consistent form of libertarianism. Therefore, debates within the libertarian discipline should be about the end results of property and not values beyond property. This may mean that the libertarian discipline should be abandoned, but if one embraces norms contrary to property, they can no longer call themselves libertarians.

However, there is much disagreement concerning the form that property would take within a libertarian system. Even when there is a broad consensus of non-aggression, the results of such non-aggression differ based on who is describing a libertarian society. The Hoppean view and the agorist view of complete privatization are conflicting visions, although both are ‘thin libertarian’ theories. But both views are technically correct, in that they are possibilities within libertarianism.

As long as one remains within a non-aggressive philosophy, one will be able to establish whatever system one wants in libertarianism. All conceivable systems could be described as libertarian as long as they respect private property rights. Thus, the debate within libertarianism is over which form of property management is the most efficient, or in other terms, which form of social organization will out-compete the rest. All our debates eventually need to result in individual strategies to maximize private profit. Using any other terms of debate, one moves into a philosophy that is not expressly libertarian. This is not to say that libertarians need to seek material profit above all, but libertarianism is largely an economic philosophy that uses economic terms due to the focus on efficiency.

The Second Order

The fact that any libertarian society will be predicated upon personal profit maximization demonstrates how libertarianism serves as a basis for further philosophy and strategy. Each person within a libertarian society still has to decide how they will manage their property or outsource the management thereof.

All libertarian thought henceforth ought to be about how best to maximize profit once we have established full rights to property. Libertarians need to establish how it is possible to avoid most potentially negative outcomes that a pure private property society could conceivably have. We should not tacitly assume that the libertarian ethic nullifies all problems, or even that the libertarian ethic allows for proper solutions to all problems. Rather, it is superior to any other ethic overall. When one shifts one’s focus from the ethic into the profit maximization derivative from that ethic, one finds a relatively unexplored field in libertarianism.

Upon entering this field, we ought to look back to the original theory of the social contract and the classical liberal ideas for managing society. Once we have established a libertarian order, or a new “state of nature”, we can then look at the theory of the social contract to see what the libertarian order could become. Our philosophical heritage has allowed us to completely reframe the social contract and use it at the basis of libertarianism and statecraft without justifying the state. The intellectual work of the 20th century radical libertarians has given us the best opportunity to reincorporate classical tools into modern theory.

Social Contract Theories

The three and a half centuries that we have had to develop libertarianism have done enough to establish a legal system and an ethical philosophy. This means that we need to change our focus to a descriptive outlook. Toward that end, Locke’s theory of the social contract is simple and the least controversial for a libertarian system. Locke simply stated that in order to prevent potential revenge that could arise from personal judgment over all legal matters, there needs to be a central state to create a harmonious society. This social contract would give the central authority power over law to prevent unnecessary violence. This is simple to adopt into preceding libertarianism, as all persons within a society can form a contract, or in Hoppean terms, a covenant. This allows them to defeat the possible problem of conflicting legal enforcers by giving one concrete agency power over judgment. Thus, by simply adopting Lockean theory within a stateless framework, we have explained how defense could work in a libertarian society. Finding solutions to questions simply becomes one of adjusting our frames of reference to a voluntary basis.

Hobbes comes at the problem of a social contract from the right. He states that since the natural state of man is violence and chaos, man needs to be suppressed by a mortal god, or the state. The state then retains sovereignty in itself and has functionally absolute power over its citizens. We find this adopted into neoreactionary theory through the notion of contractual absolutism and the idea that establishing a social contract can lead to a reactionary and authoritarian form of government. If we accept the libertarian framing, we also accept that there is no inherent problem with this form of governance as long as it respects the property of all the people within it. The problem with Hobbesian theory is that the Leviathan is not constructed voluntarily, not that the Leviathan exists at all. As long as the Leviathan coercively imposes no costs on the people in society, it would be a completely justified construct.

Rousseau, meanwhile, comes at the problem from the left. He admits that a political society is worse than living in nature, then establishes that we ought to establish a social contract to prevent further ills. This social contract would consist of making the entire polity absolutely supreme and creating a radically democratic society where all impose duties on all and are equally free (or unfree). This can solve leftist criticisms by allowing them to undertake any profit-maximizing scheme they wish. This profit, however, sacrifices material well-being for a feeling of equality and moral superiority. If the people in the leftist society value having equal obligations more than having liberty and property, they can sacrifice their liberty and property to maximize their psychological profit.

Application of Social Contracts

By simply rehabilitating social contracts into our theory, we find at least three new intellectually stimulating directions that libertarianism could take. If we think about how to maximize personal profit and how that relates to the wider society, we find an entire field of libertarianism that has been left largely unexplored, with social contract theory only serving as a baseline. Even agorist and Hoppean theories now seem woefully insufficient, and it seems that we are at a junction where we can truly advance libertarian theory.

By introducing a second layer of thought in libertarianism we find ourselves with infinitely more options than before. We can now solve problems using these newfound tools and manage to find even better solutions for ubiquitous criticisms of libertarianism. We do not have to resort to contrived logic or empty statements; we can now use whatever we can conceive of to defend liberty. There is no more uphill battle to defend liberty; we place ourselves in a position of attack and of strength.

This even allows us to turn around every statist criticism against libertarianism and use it to strengthen our case. Whenever someone points out an apparent flaw in libertarianism, we can simply default to the establishment of these second order systems to solve the problem. We can repeat the exact solution that was proposed back to the proponent of that solution mutatis mutandis within the framework of libertarianism. This only comes with a caveat that their solution needs to maximize social profit, whether it be material or immaterial.

Conclusion

But if every system is possible in libertarianism, it would also mean that systems which are reprehensible to libertarians are allowed to flourish. Autostatist reciprocity is a necessary form of libertarian organization and vital for any future libertarian system. But is there any way to combat undesirable systems? Is there any reason to counter illibertarianism within the aforementioned second order of politics? Can we do anything about potential totalitarian systems, and if so, should we? These questions will be addressed in Part VIII.

<<<Part VI                                                                                             Part VIII>>>

A Glossary of Social Justice Warrior Terminology, 2nd Edition

The use of language by social justice warriors frequently departs from both the dictionary definitions and the common understanding of words by most of the general population. As such, a guide to social justice warrior speech may be helpful to the layperson, along with commentary about how their uses of words relate to reality. This will take the form of an informal and potentially humorous glossary, which will not be exhaustive due to some terms being understood in the same manner by social justice warriors and the layperson, and due to the continual invention of new terms. This glossary will focus on how such terms are used in practice rather than how social justice warriors might define them in theory. Whereas the first edition is the most popular post to ever grace this site and two years in which SJWs have become increasingly deranged have passed, I now present the second edition of the Glossary of Social Justice Warrior Terminology.

Ableism
(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects people with disabilities, regardless of validity.
Ablesplaining
(verb): condesplaining by a able-bodied person to a disabled person. See Condesplaining
AFAB/AMAB
(abbreviation): assigned female/male at birth. This tends to be a statement of biological reality concerning people whose brains do not conform to said reality.
Ageism
(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects young or old people, regardless of validity.
Agesplaining
(verb): condesplaining to a person of a different age. See Condesplaining
Agender
(adjective): a person who identifies with no gender. Usually (but not always) a denial of biological reality.
Ally
(adjective): someone considered to be part of a privileged group who works with social justice warriors to achieve their goals.
Anti-Semitism
(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects Jewish people, regardless of validity.
Appropriation
(noun): the use of parts of a culture by someone who does not identify as a person from that culture. Although appropriation has been responsible for the spread of new and better ideas and technology throughout the world, social justice warriors view appropriation as problematic.
Bigender
(adjective): a person who identifies as a mixture of two genders. Usually (but not always) a denial of biological reality. See Intersex
Bigotry
1. (noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects a group which is said to lack privilege, regardless of validity. See Ableism, Ageism, Anti-Semitism, Biphobia, Cissexism, Classism, Condesplaining, Heterosexism, Homophobia, Islamophobia, Racism, Religious oppression, Sexism, Transphobia
2. (noun): a combination of prejudice and power.
Biphobia
(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects bisexuals, pansexuals, polysexuals, or genderfluid people, regardless of validity.
Birth-assigned sex
(noun): see AFAB/AMAB
Brocialism
(noun): the belief that socialism will result in gender equality. This term is used by social justice warriors to accuse fellow-travelers of sexism.
Body positivity
(noun): acceptance and advocacy of unhealthy body weight.
CAFAB/CAMAB
(abbreviation): coercively assigned female/male at birth. A term used by social justice warriors for an intersex child who is assigned a gender by parents and/or doctors.
Check your privilege
(phrase): an annoying phrase used by social justice warriors to silence someone.
Cisabled
(adjective): a person who identifies with the ability/disability indicated by their externally observable features. This is a sign of a healthy mind.
Cisethnic
(adjective): a person who identifies with the ethnicity indicated by their externally observable features. This is a sign of a healthy mind.
Cisgender
(adjective): a person who identifies with the gender indicated by their externally observable features. This is a sign of a healthy mind.
Cishet
(abbreviation): cisgender heterosexual.
Cisplaining
(verb): condesplaining by a cisgendered person to a transgendered person. See Condesplaining
Cissexism
(noun): any system that does not cater to the whims of transgendered people.
Classism
(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects people of lower social standing and/or little wealth, regardless of validity. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of classism against wealthy people, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.
Classplaining
(verb): See Econosplaining
Collusion
1. (verb): to support traditional and/or dominant power structures.
2. (verb): to work against social justice warriors.
Condesplaining
(verb): the act of a person said to be privileged explaining something to a person said to be oppressed.
Consent
(verb): to agree to participate in an activity, especially activity of a sexual nature. Consent cannot be given when someone is intoxicated, unconscious, or has been threatened or manipulated into compliance, but social justice warriors only recognize this if a female is in such a condition.
Content Warning
(noun): an alternative to trigger warnings which was created because some people complained that a trigger warning is itself triggering. See Trigger Warning and Triggering
Cotton ceiling
(noun): the tendency of transgender women to be excluded from opportunities and privileges available to cisgender women. See TERF
Cultural appropriation
(noun): see Appropriation
Cultural erasure
(noun): the demand that immigrants fit into the cultures of their new countries. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of cultural erasure of the nation hosting the immigrants, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.
Dangerous
(adjective): See Problematic
Degendering
(verb): to deny an individual the agency to choose one’s gender identity.
Denial
1. (verb): any doubt whatsoever in the truth of social justice.
2. (verb): any doubt whatsoever in the truth of any statement by a member of a victim class. See Victim class
Derail
(verb): to divert a discussion from its intended topic. This is frequently done by social justice warriors through a variety of means, including accusations of bigotry, unchecked privilege, etc.
Discredited
(adjective): scientific findings that disagree with the social justice narrative. This word is typically used as though it were a magic spell to repel uncomfortable truths.
Discrimination
(noun): the expression of any less-than-favorable preference toward a person or group believed to be less privileged or more oppressed than oneself, regardless of validity.
Diversity
(noun): the idea of hiring employees and accepting students for the purpose of achieving certain quotas of victim class members. This often reduces the quality of student bodies and workforces. See Victim class
Dudebro
(adjective): a derogatory term for a young straight white cishet male who has opinions contrary to social justice dogma.
Econosplaining
(verb): condesplaining by a wealthier person to a poorer person. See Condesplaining
Edgelord
(noun): a less extreme version of a shitlord. See Shitlord
Enemy
(adjective): any person or institution that is insufficiently leftist.
Essentialism
(noun): the idea that people, objects, and ideas can be identified based on externally observable features. Although this is empirically true, social justice warriors consider this idea to be problematic.
Ethnocentrism
1. (noun): the idea that one’s own culture is superior to others. This is viewed negatively by social justice warriors, even if it is factually justified.
2. (verb): to judge other culture by the standards and values of one’s own culture.
FAAB
(abbreviation): See AFAB
Fascist
(adjective): See Enemy
Fat acceptance
(noun): See Body positivity
Feminism
(noun): the idea that women should have the same rights and privileges as men without having the same responsibilities and drawbacks.
Gatekeeping
(verb): to exclude people from a broader community to which they belong. See Horizontal oppression
Gender
(noun): the socially constructed roles for each biological sex.
Gender binary
(noun): the idea that there are only two genders; male and female. This is viewed as problematic by social justice warriors, despite being based on biological facts.
Gender equality
(noun): the belief that people should receive equal treatment and not be discriminated against on the basis of gender. Frequently accompanied by a denial of inherent biological differences between the genders.
Gender expression
(noun): a person’s external presentation of gender. This may or may not be in alignment with either biological reality or one’s gender identity.
Gender identity
(noun): a person’s internal sense of gender. This may or may not be in alignment with biological reality.
Genderfluid
(noun): a gender identity that changes over time. No biological basis for such an identity exists in humans.
Genderqueer
(noun): an umbrella term for gender identities other than male and female. See Third gender
Hate crime
(noun): a crime said to be motivated by bigotry against some aspect of the identity of the victim, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability. Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of hate crimes against people who are said to be privileged.
Healthy at any size
(phrase): the belief that being morbidly obese is a life choice with no negative consequences. In reality, obesity leads to heart disease, type 2 diabetes, chronic joint pain, and many other illnesses. See Body positive
Heteronormative
(noun): the belief that heterosexuality is the only acceptable, natural, or normal sexual orientation. This is important for maintaining and defending traditional societies, so social justice warriors oppose it.
Heterosexism
(noun): the individual and collective beliefs and practices that favor heterosexuality. This is said to cause unjust oppression of non-heterosexuals.
Heterosplaining
(verb): Condesplaining by a heterosexual person to an LGBT person. See Condesplaining
Hijra
(adjective): see Third gender
Homophobia
(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects homosexuals, regardless of validity. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of bigotry against heterosexuals, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.
Horizontal oppression
(noun): the support of traditional and/or dominant power structures by members of victim classes, especially when it negatively affects other members of victim classes. See Collusion, Internalized oppression, and Victim class
Inclusion theater
(verb): to appear to practice diversity and inclusivity without actually doing so. This is commonly done to avoid the wrath of social justice warriors without actually kowtowing to their demands.
Inclusivity
(noun): the goal of removing all barriers to participation in society for members of victim classes. This is a primary goal of social justice. See Diversity and Victim class
Injustice
(noun): any action that is in disagreement with social justice dogma.
Internalized inferiority
(noun): see Internalized oppression
Internalized oppression
(noun): a term used to denounce a member of a group said to be oppressed who deviates from social justice ideology. Variants include internalized racism, internalized misogyny, internalized homophobia, etc. See Victim class
Internalized superiority
(noun): a term used to denounce a member of a group said to be privileged who deviates from social justice ideology.
Intersectionality
(noun): the social justice warrior method for analyzing the various privileges or oppressions that a person may experience. See Progressive stack
Intersex
(adjective): a person who is born with genitals which are not male or female, but something in between. While a legitimate concern, social justice warriors spend relatively little time addressing it.
Islamophobia
1. (noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects Muslims, regardless of validity.
2. (noun): any criticism of Islam, regardless of validity.
Its (insert current year)!
(interjection): a frustrated declaration that one should agree with social justice warriors. Often used in place of a valid argument.
Kyriarchy
(noun): see Intersectionality
LGBTTQQIAAP+
(abbreviation): refers to the ever-expanding list of non-heterosexual orientations. Using a smaller, less current version can be seen as problematic and non-inclusive.
MAAB
(abbreviation): See AMAB
Manarchism
(noun): the belief that social anarchism will result in gender equality. This term is used by social justice warriors to accuse fellow-travelers of sexism. See Brocialism
Mansplaining
(verb): condesplaining by a man to a woman. See Condesplaining
Men’s rights activist (MRA)
(noun): any man who rejects social justice dogma, especially of the feminist variety. See Enemy
Microaggression
(noun): any activity that makes a social justice warrior uncomfortable. In reality, there is no such thing as a microaggression because the law of excluded middle requires that an act be either aggressive or non-aggressive.
Misogyny
(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects females, regardless of validity. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of sexism against men (misandry), due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.
Neurosexism
(noun): the belief that gender differences in behavior, character, and intelligence are caused by biological differences in brains. Although this is empirically true, social justice warriors consider this idea to be problematic.
Neutrois
(adjective): See Agender
NTsplaining
(verb): condesplaining by a neurotypical person to a neurodivergent person. See Condesplaining
Open letter
(phrase): a method by which social justice warriors publicly whine about whatever they find to be problematic at the moment. See Problematic
Oppression
1. (noun): discrimination at the group or societal level. See Discrimination
2. (noun): see Microaggression
Other
1. (noun): the idea that other people and groups are distinct beings different from oneself, even if they are not believed to be inferior.
2. (adjective): a person or group recognized as distinct from oneself.
3. (verb): to place another person or group into the position of an Other. This is generally a useful way of dealing with social justice warriors, as well as some of the more delusional types of people mentioned in this glossary.
Otherkin
(adjective): a person who self-identifies as a non-human. Otherkin are either one of the most delusional types of people given consideration in social justice ideology or trolls who are faking it to make fun of social justice warriors.
Oppression
1. (noun): systemically enforced social inequality embedded in individuals and institutions.
2. (noun): material and structural constraints that hinder a person’s opportunities.
3. (noun): any hierarchical relationship, regardless of validity.
4. (noun): any opposition to social justice dogma.
Pansexual
(adjective): a synonym for bisexual used by people who reject the gender binary. See Bisexual and Gender binary
Passing
1. (noun): the phenomenon in which a member of a victim class appears to be a member of a privileged class, and can thus access some level of privilege that other members of the victim class cannot. Variants include white-passing, straight-passing, etc.
2. (verb): to appear to be a member of a privileged class when one is not.
3. (verb): to cross over from one community to another without detection.
Patriarchy
(noun): a system of male dominance that suppresses non-masculine traits and behaviors. This is considered to be problematic by social justice warriors, even if such a system is formed voluntarily and proves more successful than other forms of social organization.
Policing
(verb): to reprimand a person who is not acting in accordance with social justice ideology, regardless of validity.
Polysexual
(adjective): see Pansexual
Power
1. (noun): a person’s perception of one’s ability to influence outcomes to meet one’s needs and wants.
2. (noun): the ability to make decisions that affect another person
3. (noun): control of societal institutions
Prejudice
(noun): a pre-judgment of an individual or group, usually based on stereotypes.
Prejudice plus power
(phrase): the social justice warrior standard for bigotry. This leads them to deny possibilities such as anti-white racism, misandry, heterophobia, cisphobia, and other bigotry against groups said to be privileged.
Pride
(noun): the celebration of a non-cisgendered identity or non-heterosexual orientation, despite the fact that having such an identity or orientation is innate and not an accomplishment.
Privilege
(noun): the sum of the advantages (or lack of disadvantages) that a person or group has, regardless of whether those advantages are innate, legitimately earned, or illegitimately taken. Social justice warriors view privileged people as normative, and claim that privileged people view others as unnatural or deviant.
Privilege blindness
(noun): a lack of awareness of one’s privilege.
Privsplaining
(verb): See Condesplaining
Problematic
(adjective): that which is at odds with progressive or social justice ideology, regardless of truth value. This glossary would be considered highly problematic.
Progressive stack
(noun): an arbitrary and capricious method used to decide how privileged a person is relative to others. Often referred to by non-SJWs as the Oppression Olympics. See Intersectionality
Pronouns
(noun): invented words for other genders. Social justice warriors sometimes demand that other people call them by these words and become enraged when their fantasies are not indulged.
Pseudoscience
(adjective): See Discredited
Queer
(noun): an umbrella term for all non-heterosexual, non-binary people.
Questioning
(adjective): a person who is unsure of one’s gender identity or sexual orientation.
Racism
(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects minority racial groups, regardless of validity. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of racism against white people, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.
Rape culture
(noun): the belief that brutally victimizing women while they scream for help is socially acceptable.
Reactionary
(adjective): See Enemy and Problematic
Religious oppression
(verb): any criticism or negative sentiment based on religious beliefs and/or practices, regardless of validity. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of religious oppression against Christians, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.
Right side of history
(phrase): a trendy political position in the present that is highly detrimental to future generations.
Safe space
(noun): a location where emotionally unstable and/or immature people who are upset may gather to receive comfort and counseling for the traumatic experience of being exposed to a mere difference of opinion.
Self-identification
(noun): the idea that one can choose one’s identity, regardless of empirical facts.
Sexism
(noun): see Feminism. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of sexism against men, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.
Shaming
(verb): to suggest that degenerate behavior has negative consequences and should therefore be discouraged. Social justice warriors consider this to be problematic.
Shitlord
(noun): a person who engages in problematic speech and/or behavior. See Problematic
Sizesplaining
(verb): condesplaining by a “normal-sized” person to a person widely perceived to be too small or large. See Condesplaining
Social construct
(noun): an idea created and developed in society. While a valid concept, social justice warriors misuse this concept to reject a priori truths.
Social justice
(noun): the goal of equalizing participation in society, redistributing resources, and providing safety and security for all. In practice, this always results in advocacy of socialism or communism, and social justice warriors tend to be willing to commit injustices in the name of this greater good.
Stay Woke
(phrase): an annoying phrase uttered by both social justice warriors and non-SJWs to advise other people to hold true to their beliefs.
Stereotype
(noun): a fixed image about a person or group that collectivizes them and denies their individuality. Social justice warriors tend to reject these unless they concern people said to be privileged, but they tend to ignore the fact that stereotypes frequently have a basis in reality.
Straightsplaining
(verb): See Heterosplaining
SWERF
(abbreviation): sex-worker exclusionary radical feminism. Some social justice warriors meet this description, while others find the concept to be problematic.
SWETERF
(abbreviation): See SWERF and TERF
TERF
(abbreviation): trans-exclusionary radical feminism. Some social justice warriors meet this description, while others find the concept to be problematic.
Thinsplaining
(verb): See Sizesplaining
Third gender
(adjective): a distinct gender that is neither male nor female. No biological basis for such an identity exists in humans.
Transabled
(adjective): a person who does not identify with the ability/disability indicated by their externally observable features. This is usually a sign of an unhealthy mind, and may lead a person to alter one’s externally observable features in an effort to make them resemble that of one’s ability identity. This may include self-harm.
Transethnic
(adjective): a person who does not identify with the ethnicity indicated by their externally observable features. This is usually a sign of an unhealthy mind, and may lead a person to alter one’s externally observable features in an effort to make them resemble that of one’s ethnic identity.
Transgender
(adjective): a person who does not identify with the gender indicated by their externally observable features. This is usually a sign of an unhealthy mind, and may lead a person to alter one’s externally observable features in an effort to make them resemble that of one’s gender identity.
Transphobia
(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects transgender people, regardless of validity. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of bigotry against cisgendered people, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.
Transsexual
(noun): a person who alters one’s presentation to express one’s gender identity. See Gender identity
Trigger Warning
(noun): an advisory that following content may upset emotionally unstable and/or immature people.
Triggering
1. (adjective): content may upset emotionally unstable and/or immature people.
2. (verb): to engage in communication which may upset emotionally unstable and/or immature people.
Troll
1. (verb): to publicly disagree with, criticize, or debate a social justice warrior.
2. (adjective): a person who does the aforementioned.
Truscum
(noun): people who claim that being transgender requires one to have gender dysphoria.
Tucute
(noun): people who claim that being transgender does not require one to have gender dysphoria.
Two-spirit
(noun): see Genderfluid
Verbal violence
(noun): the nonsensical idea that speaking words can inflict physical harm upon someone.
Victim
(noun): a member of a victim class. See Victim class
Victim blaming
(verb): to suggest that people have some responsibility for their own well-being and self-defense.
Victim blindness
(verb): a lack of awareness of one’s victim status.
Victim class
(noun): a group of people said to be oppressed by dominant beliefs, practices, and institutions.
White nationalism
(noun): any effort by white people to form a group identity and advocate for the interest of their group.
White privilege
(noun): the belief that white people have inherent advantages due to widespread racism.
Whitesplaining
(verb): condesplaining by a white person to a person of color. See Condesplaining
Whorephobia
(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects sex workers, regardless of validity.
Xenophobia
(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects people who are different from oneself, regardless of validity.

How To Manufacture A Sociopolitical Movement

Since the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. on February 14 that left 17 people dead and 17 more wounded, there has been a renewed push for tougher gun laws. In the weeks since, schools around the nation have had organized protests in which students walked out of class. Some students traveled to Washington, D.C., and a larger event occurred there on March 24.

There is some lovely beachfront property in Arizona for sale for anyone who believes that this is truly a grassroots movement in which students are expressing their own opinions and planning their own events. Like other forms of establishment-friendly activism, this movement is greatly assisted (if not entirely orchestrated) by agents of the Cathedral and follows several guidelines which are common to other such movements. Let us deconstruct this movement to see how the establishment can manufacture and sustain such movements step-by-step.

1. Never let a crisis go to waste. Though the establishment is not above manufacturing a problem itself in order to have a pretext to impose its desired solution, less effort is required on their part to take advantage of events that happen without their direct involvement. (One might call compulsory education laws and lack of involuntary commitment of the mentally ill a form of direct involvement, but let us take direct involvement to mean conspiring with the shooters.) A number of high-profile mass shootings have occurred in recent years, and almost everyone agrees that this is a problem. However, fervor for more gun restrictions quickly waned after each previous shooting when token legislation either failed to pass or caused very little meaningful change and other events took over the news cycle. The progressives have learned from this, which brings us to the remaining points.

2. Call in support from other establishment-friendly movements. In this case, major players in the Women’s March are now helping with March For Our Lives. The American Civil Liberties Union is advising students on legal matters concerning school systems that threaten punishment of students who walk out of class to protest. Leftist public figures are providing generous financial support and speaking out. Non-profits like Everytown for Gun Safety are pitching in. This is to be expected; leftist activist movements frequently share personnel, taking advantage of experience in fundraising and organization from fellow-traveling organizations.

3. Rely on feelings instead of facts. Most people are simply incapable of high rational discourse (partly because of government schools), and leftism usually stands athwart pure reason. On this issue, empirical evidence is also against the left; for instance, a March 20 shooting at Great Mills High School in Maryland was quickly stopped by a police officer who shot and killed the shooter. The Florida shooting might have been stopped with a much lower body count as well had the school resource officer there not behaved in a cowardly fashion. In fact, it would not have occurred at all had myriad warning signs about the shooter not been ignored.

Furthermore, there have been at least 338,700 cases of guns being used defensively in America between 2007 and 2011. This is a low estimate because all relevant empirics are unable to count

a) the number of crimes which did not occur because a potential criminal chose not to offend due to seeing a gun or believing one was present, and

b) the number of crimes which did not occur because defensive uses of guns killed repeat offenders who would have committed more crimes had they lived.

Without guns, other weapons would be used to commit homicides and other crimes, such as knives, bombs, and vehicles, as occurs in countries where firearm ownership is rare and difficult. That there is a difference between a legally justifiable shooting and a morally justifiable shooting further complicates matters.

Gun control is and always has been an effort by the state to widen the power disparity between state and citizen, and any such laws will be enforced by gun violence or the threat thereof. Since the facts are not on the establishment’s side, it is necessary to appeal to the lowest common denominator by making emotional appeals when attempting to gain support for progressive political causes. This leads to results such as the new gun control legislation in Florida, which bans bump stocks despite the fact that they have not been used in a mass shooting there.

4. Use children as political props. Emma Gonzalez and David Hogg, both survivors of the Parkland shooting, have become two of the most recognizable public faces of the movement, pushing for more gun control and boycotts of pro-gun organizations such as the National Rifle Association. Children have a peculiar station in political life. They have little or no money of their own, so they cannot bribe politicians to give them what they want. They are not allowed to vote, so they have no ability to punish politicians at the ballot box. However, they make up for this lack of formal power with a great amount of informal power. The adults of a society tend to care deeply about the well-being of children, as natural selection strongly favors this. A cry for help from children is thus an effective tactic for those who seek social change, and anyone who attacks these children in the same manner that politically active adults are attacked will be regarded as a complete jerk.

Children are also more easily controlled than adults; not only are they less willing to go off script for fear of punishment, but they are less able as well. The combination of years of indoctrination with statist propaganda, lack of counter-narrative information, and the aforementioned sympathetic image make them the ideal mouthpieces for establishment talking points. Though Gonzalez, Hogg, and other children who are advocating for gun control are simply reciting opinions that they have been taught to believe and viewing their traumatic experience through that lens, saying this publicly will get one shunned in ‘respectable‘ circles.

5. Fabricate authentic grassroots activism and the appearance of elite support for it. When students marched in Washington, D.C., Democratic legislators met them on the Capitol lawn. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Sen. Bernie Sanders all spoke to the demonstrators, while other Democrats mingled with the students. It is nearly impossible for an activist movement to bring about change by itself. Instead, it serves as a signal that elites may be able to make societal changes without eliciting too much negative blowback and a tool for claiming a popular mandate while sidestepping election results. This is yet another example of the high-low versus middle dynamic, as the elites and activists are united against the average law-abiding gun owner.

6. Minimize alternative courses of action. In the case of school shootings, an obvious solution (at least to libertarians) is to abolish government schools in favor of a free market in education services. After all, there can be no school shootings if there are no schools, and the students are ultimately there because of the threat of state violence against them and/or their legal guardians should they choose not to go. This coercive monopoly deprives the schools of market incentives to provide adequate security, while sovereign immunity protects school officials and police from civil and criminal liability. Other strategies include focusing on mental health, arming teachers, assigning more police officers to schools, and improving enforcement of existing laws.

The former will be dismissed as a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream, with supporters of educational alternatives characterized as wanting children to remain uneducated. The tone of these dismissals will be familiar to students of Frederic Bastiat:

“Socialism, like the old policy from which it emanates, confounds Government and society. And so, every time we object to a thing being done by Government, it concludes that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of education by the State—then we are against education altogether. We object to a State religion—then we would have no religion at all. We object to an equality which is brought about by the State then we are against equality, etc., etc. They might as well accuse us of wishing men not to eat, because we object to the cultivation of corn by the State.”[1]

The latter options may be considered as part of a comprehensive plan, but that plan will be sure to include curtailment of gun rights.

7. Use the media to skew the debate in your favor. There are always a number of conspiracy theories that surround mass shootings, from notions of crisis actors to the idea that government agents were complicit in the attack. Unfortunately, this gives ammunition to progressive activists because they can lump legitimate criticism together with such nonsense to make it appear that there are no reasonable arguments against their position.

As per step 3, emotional outbursts will take the place of reasoned debate on the relevant issues. Anyone who dissents cannot simply have a policy disagreement with leftists. It must be that they want more children to die from gun violence. This explains the virulent hatred toward the NRA, which leftists have called a terrorist organization, accessories to murder, and other such epithets. The sad truth is that this manner of ridicule, polemics, and demagoguery is commonly used because it works. Following step 4, it is clear that the progressives are seeking to pontificate rather than have an honest conversation because they are putting forth advocates that they deem irreproachable.

Another tactic is to simply deny a platform to those who do not fit the narrative. Consider the case of Kyle Kashuv, another survivor of the Parkland shooting. Unlike Gonzalez and Hogg, he supports gun rights and several of the alternatives listed in step 6. He was scheduled to be interviewed by Brooke Baldwin of CNN, but she canceled the interview. He accused her of canceling because he linked on social media to an article that was critical of her, and CNN of avoiding an even-sided discussion of the issues. Kashuv was also excluded from of a Time Magazine cover that featured Gonzalez, Hogg, and three other anti-gun Parkland survivors.

8. Never accomplish all of your stated goals. A movement with no more objectives to complete is a movement with no more reason to exist. This is undesirable, as it means that the leaders of the movement have to be productive for a living and the politicians have to figure out a new campaign platform in order to get money and votes. As all competent consulting firms know, as long as one can appear to be working toward a solution, there is profit to be made in prolonging the problem. Meanwhile, the Congress critters have a wedge issue to get voters to the polls in the next election. This should make gun owners exceptionally cautious, as this movement cannot be satiated with a bump stock ban here and an age limit adjustment there. They will take whatever they can get, and ceding anything will only embolden them.

References:

  1. Bastiat, Frederic (1850). The Law. p. 22.

On Libertarianism and Statecraft, Part VI: Authority and Liberty

<<<Part V                                                                                                Part VII>>>

Author’s note: The main themes of this series will be further expounded upon in my upcoming book Anarcho-Monarchism, which will be available in April.

Introduction

If there is to be a government in a libertarian society, there will eventually be a problem of state formation. Libertarians wish to avoid having a state over them, but here I advocate for giving a degree of sovereignty to a governing entity. The main problem lies within the potential capacity of the managerial government to usurp the property of its constituents and leave that property liable for expropriation and resale. This is an issue no matter whether we default to monarchs, insurance agencies, private defense organizations, or heavily armed individuals.

Markets in Everything

When governance is integrated into the market as all other industries are, there is necessarily a formation of a market for governance. Government is no longer a coercive agency that imposes itself onto a society, but rather is subject to the same economic laws that all other agencies are. The government then must conform to the wishes of those who pay for the government, and is no longer subsidized by a monopoly on violence. If a market government were to not conform to the wishes of those who pay for its governance services, it would find itself out-competed by other governments.

When a government is subject to market forces, it will be affected by those market forces just as every other agency. This will cause the services offered by a government to be less costly and of better quality. By placing the government within the confines of consumer sovereignty, we have fundamentally erased the problem of inefficiency and oppression. By removing the state that subsidizes a government and thus the capacity to aggressively exercise government force, we have removed the negatives of government. The reason why libertarians should be opposed to the state is that it has legitimized aggressive force, not that it provides valuable services.

Within a libertarian society where property rights are absolute, there is no way that a government can even theoretically become tyrannical. The only way in which tyranny can be exercised without the state is through overt warfare, at which point the government, as such, would be dissolved. This perfect confederacy wherein each person is the absolute ruler of their own property can restrain and hold the mandate of the government in check. The management of property can continue on efficient terms without leading to perverse incentives. This is unlike the statist government, which retains its privileged position while being aggressive.

Authorities in Society

Libertarians are still wary of authority; they cannot conceptualize that authority itself may be good for people. But there is plausible benefit that can be gained from following authorities. Any fear of authority ignores the nature of authority itself and supposes that authority means privilege. Within the modern casually totalitarian state, we only see authority at its worst. The people in authority are those who have unbridled control over us. Furthermore, authority is selected for negative traits and thus ends up being held by the worst people in society. However, to frame authority around the modern state is to ignore most of human history.

To explain this concept in purely libertarian economic terms, we have to move from a more metaphysical interpretation of authority to a wholly social one. In a completely spontaneous order with a perfect division of labor, authorities will always arise. The market system will always give those with more expertise control over their areas of expertise, so pure market forces produce authority wherever it is advantageous. When the proper people are placed in charge through market forces, they will be in charge because they ought to be in charge and not because they want to rule over us.

Unlike political selection, markets select for whoever can produce the most utility for the consumer. This means that by doing away with the state, we will ensure that the leaders are also the ones who should lead. People who participate in markets do so while managing their own property or the property that they have been delegated, and they do so for their own benefit. This results in an accumulation of information, as people want to derive the most profits from their own property. Those people will thus have to learn how to maximize the benefit of property.

When people have to learn how to profit most from their own property, they will realize that the best way to profit is to delegate the management of property. People do not have equal talent for managing property, so there is a necessity for a division of labor. However, when people delegate the management of their property to someone else, they need to guarantee that the agent they appoint to manage their property is the most capable manager available. If people allowed unworthy individuals to manage their property, they would then be subject to the losses caused by improper management.

When a society is formed spontaneously and conforms to the interests of those within the society, property would be utilized so as to bring profit. The managers of property would be selected by their demonstrated merit. In this way, as with all other market interactions, the best will rise to the top because they can provide the largest profit for the holders of property. Those most capable of property management will have the most opportunity to manage property.

Authoritarianism Within the Market

This also means that there is nothing inherently wrong with authoritarianism, as authoritarianism simply means obeying authority rather than expressing personal freedom. When those who have authority are the most capable and can provide the most profit, authoritarianism becomes fully compatible with libertarianism. (This is true in a more fundamental way; a private property owner who wields absolute monarchic power over his estate is both perfectly libertarian and perfectly authoritarian.) It is not a matter of authority and liberty, but rather coercion and markets. Giving up the freedom to manage one’s own property in exchange for additional profit is fully compatible with libertarianism.

Furthermore, even when authoritarianism is implemented coercively, it is not necessarily a counter-libertarian force. Within the political realm, more personal freedoms do not always make for a more libertarian society. When the structure of a government is authoritarian, it may be that actual property rights are strengthened if the ruler has such an ideological bent. Even though there may be less representative democracy and no constitution, within the practical sphere of life there may be a more efficient system of property under an authoritarian state. Of course, we would always prefer a perfectly stateless libertarian order in which we can practice efficient statecraft. But when one must choose between systems of government, one should not blindly oppose authoritarianism.

It is not as if libertarianism is expressly threatened by authoritarian or autocratic regimes, although most modern examples thereof tend to be socialistic. Using liberal concepts to frame libertarianism results in a worship of the civil democratic state to the detriment of liberty. Libertarians should support that which gives people the most rights to control their own property, not whatever gives people the ability to cast ballots.

This form of authoritarianism is a distinct social benefit. Provided that the authority is decided by market forces, authority will serve to improve the quality of life for everyone within society. The authority itself is not oppressive, and there is no inherent problem with authority. Authoritarianism is the most efficient organization of society as long as the proper people are in positions of authority and the positions themselves are not coercively maintained. Thus, within the economic and legal framework of libertarianism, all libertarians should favor authoritarianism. There are no conflicting political forces of liberty and authority, and once authority is subjected to the framework of liberty, it is only complementary to liberty. Authoritarianism serves as to enable and enhance libertarianism as a political philosophy. This may seem incredibly counter-intuitive, but what libertarians are fighting is coercion. Whenever authorities refrain from coercing anyone, they are perfectly libertarian.

Democracy and Market Government

Market governance cannot be confused with democracy for many reasons, the most important two of which are that there is no real way to opt out of democracy and the existence of a vote in itself supposedly ties a person to a state. Thus, as long as there are votes, any state action is justified and there is no way to lawfully dissolve the state or exit the state without leaving for another state or carrying out a violent coup. This is contrasted with a libertarian social order where the fundamental presupposition is the individual right to own property. All government can be dissolved when it stops profiting the constituents thereof and no government can force compliance further than what the people employing the government are willing to reinforce.

It may be easy to draw a supposed line between the two types of governance as they both theoretically cater to the interests of the public, but this assessment must be reconsidered. Democracy fundamentally leaves the decisions of the government up to a communist system of representation and decision-making. Each person can give equal input on policy. Market governance, however, has no such aspect and those in charge would most likely not consider the input of those with no qualifications to give input. Rather, they would pursue the best course of action in terms of serving their customers.

The Wrong Approach

Unless one contextualizes libertarianism as a hedonistic view of personal freedom, there can be no objection to authority from a purely libertarian perspective. We might dislike giving up managerial control over property, however, if it produces more efficient results it will be profitable for the great many. This may not be our idea of libertarianism, but it would be the most demonstrably efficient system. Libertarianism cannot be defined as absolute personal control over property. This does not imply that anyone would be forced into authoritarianism, but rather that authoritarianism is a perfectly consistent position within libertarian philosophy.

Private property enables outsourcing management duties; this is a major reason for the existence of free market in the first place. It is not that we need to abolish government; rather, we need to form a binding contract which can replace the non-existent social contract. If we want to create libertarian statecraft, we need to have a formally contracted and socially responsible government. The problem libertarians have with the democratic social contract is that it does not exist. If we are to establish proper governance, we need to establish a reciprocal, enforceable social contract.

Conclusion

These concepts may seem extremely alien for libertarians. We have spent a lot of time trying to create an image of libertarianism as being opposed to social contract theory. How can we properly seek to re-frame libertarianism so as to be compatible with government and authoritarianism? How can we move beyond vacuous personal freedoms into a realm of aristocracy, virtue, and efficiency? In Part VII, I will critique libertarian assumptions that are not based on sound reasoning.

<<<Part V                                                                                                Part VII>>>

Ten Observations on Right-Wing Activist Bans in the UK

On March 9, American activist Brittany Pettibone and Austrian activist Martin Sellner were detained while attempting to enter the United Kingdom through Luton Airport. The UK Home Office said in a statement that “Border Force has the power to refuse entry to an individual if it is considered that his or her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good.” They were kept in a prison until being released and deported back to Austria on March 11. On March 12, Canadian journalist Lauren Southern was denied entry at Coquelles, France, where the English Channel Tunnel joins the European mainland with the UK. Ten observations on these events follow.

1. The British government clearly mistreated Pettibone, Sellner, and Southern. In a video uploaded to Youtube on March 12, Pettibone and Sellner gave their account of their experiences. After being detained separately due to having different passports (US and EU), they were not allowed to speak to each other or use their phones and were guided everywhere by guards. They were interrogated separately concerning their intentions for entering the UK, then were kept in separate holding cells for several hours. Sellner was denied entry due to being the co-founder of Generation Identity and the possibility of Antifa violence. Once Pettibone admitted her intention to interview Tommy Robinson, founder of the English Defence League, she was asked if she also interviews Ku Klux Klan members, as though they are somehow equivalent. After being denied entry, Pettibone and Sellner were not allowed to leave to a destination other than Austria or from a port other than Luton, which violates English law. They were then held in a prison building at Heathrow in which security officials repeatedly misinformed each about the other’s whereabouts. While there, they were told not to discuss any political issues for fear that an incident may occur. During their ordeal, each was perp-walked through the airport in handcuffs on two occasions.

In an interview with Stefan Molyneux on March 13, Southern discussed her experiences. She took a bus that was traveling from France through the Channel Tunnel to England, which usually has lax border enforcement that is exploited by migrants. She said that officials ‘did a double take’ upon seeing her and said that they needed to ‘check some things’. They then had Southern get off the bus, searched her luggage, and took her to a detention center. After questioning by the border guards, she was turned over to the UK police, who detained her under the Terrorism Act 2006. During questioning, she was asked about her friends, a speech she recently gave to a Belgian nationalist group, and her religious views. Upon saying she was Christian, Southern was asked if she was an extremist and how she felt about running over Muslims with a vehicle. (Note that such terrorism has historically occurred in the reverse.) The police responded to her incredulousness by saying that they “have problems with right-wing terrorism too,” as though Islamic extremists are not right-wing in their social values. They demanded access to Southern’s phone and laptop, which she refused despite ominous threats. In response, she demanded legal counsel. This stopped the interrogation, then the UK Border Force brought her a form saying that she was banned from the UK for “racism” based on a social experiment in which she displayed posters that said “Allah Is A Gay God” in Luton on February 24.

2. The establishment does not understand technology or its rivals, which leads it to make itself look ridiculous. Recent advances in technology have created novel spaces and methods of communication which have weakened traditional gatekeepers to the point of irrelevance. But pulled along by the inertia of their own Overton bubble as they are, establishment bureaucrats continue to act as if denying people the ability to meet in a particular physical location can keep them from discussing ideas and working together. Sellner was unable to appear at Speakers’ Corner, but Robinson plans to go there in his stead to read the speech Sellner had prepared. Pettibone was unable to meet Robinson in the UK, but Robinson flew to Austria to meet Pettibone and Sellner when they arrived there after being deported. The Pettibone–Robinson interview was then filmed there. Southern was unable to meet her friends in the UK, but she was able to meet them elsewhere. The UK Home Office has thus accomplished nothing aside from making itself an easy target for mockery and, due to the previous point, a potential target for legal action.

3. Right-wing public figures must choose between keeping their audiences informed and carrying out their events securely. In a video uploaded to Youtube on March 6, Pettibone and Sellner announced their intentions to enter the UK so that Sellner could deliver a speech at Speakers’ Corner in London’s Hyde Park and Pettibone could interview Robinson. Sellner had previously had speaking engagements in the UK canceled on account of violent threats from communists. Although such personalities frequently depend on donations from like-minded people for their livelihood and those people would like to know what they are paying for, there must arise an understanding between both sides of this dynamic that some delay is necessary for security in the current political environment. Leftists can watch right-wing videos just as well as rightists can, so detailing one’s future activities in public is tantamount to a general handing his battle plans to the enemy. This is especially true when dealing with political rivals who wield enough institutional power to stymie one’s efforts. Had they never announced their intentions and simply engaged in their activism and journalism, they may have been deported afterward, but they probably would have been able to speak and conduct interviews in the UK. All right-wing activists would do well to be more spontaneous in future to keep leftists from having the intelligence necessary to attack and shut down activities.

4. Anti-discrimination laws, hate speech bans, and other such measures are inherently bigoted against historically dominant groups. These measures, like most other leftist instruments, are written in nice universalist language without reference to any specific groups of people, mentioning only broad categories against which one must not speak or act ill. But if these behaviors occurred (or were at least thought to occur) randomly, no one would find such laws to be necessary. Those who support such laws must therefore build them on foundational beliefs in white supremacy, institutionalized misogyny, etc. Words such as ‘racism’ and ‘sexism,’ which once had clearly defined meanings, become corrupted to associate a present political opponent with a hated enemy from the past and weaponized to identify targets to punish with enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. More skillful linguistic warriors have invented new words such as ‘homophobia’ and ‘transphobia’ to further demonize majorities and non-deviants. Over time, leftist activists come to believe their own nonsense and fall into a holiness spiral that results in the social justice warriors that plague college campuses today.

5. Free speech activism is misguided. According to Sellner, his speech was about freedom of speech, and the response of the British government shows that the UK does not have freedom of speech. But this was already known to anyone who cared to research the matter. At some point, opponents of the progressive agenda must recognize that information campaigns and complaining about censorship can only go so far, and that free speech for everyone succumbs to the Popperian paradox. The real battle must be for control of territory.

It must be noted that in the abstract, freedom of communication is a corollary of self-ownership. Each person has the right to exclusive control over one’s physical body, which cannot be disputed without exercising that right. Likewise, one cannot argue against freedom to communicate without exercising it. But humans do not live in the abstract; we inhabit physical and digital spaces, and another corollary of self-ownership is the ability to acquire private property rights in these spaces. Part and parcel of private property rights is the ability to regulate activity within one’s territory and exclude unwanted people from one’s territory, and speech that one wishes not to be spoken within one’s territory is a proper motive for excluding someone. States, technology companies, and others who have made commitments to freedom of speech have confused people with their free speech guarantees, as the common spaces they control are actually properties governed with lax restrictions, except when their controllers decide to ban someone.

The proper path for right-wing and libertarian activism, then, is to build the means to take control over physical and digital spaces for the purpose of censoring and excluding authoritarian leftists. Rather than simply repealing hate speech laws, an equal and opposite ban on communist propaganda and promoting multiculturalism should be instituted. Such a ban should be as vague and fear-provoking as the hate speech laws which currently muzzle rightists in order to produce a chilling effect on radical leftism. Of course, any advocacy of the concept of hate speech would count as communist propaganda, while any denigration of traditional European cultural elements would count as promoting multiculturalism. The end goals of such measures would be to show leftists that any institutional power they wish to have can and will be used against them when they are not in power.

6. The treatment of Pettibone, Sellner, and Southern versus the treatment of rape gangs and returning ISIS fighters is an example of anarcho-tyranny. Samuel Francis introduced the term ‘anarcho-tyranny’ to describe a society in which crime is permitted and criminals are not apprehended or punished (anarchy), but innocent people are punished (tyranny), especially if they object to the tolerated criminals. Pettibone, Sellner, and Southern voiced no intention to engage in any activity that would cause harm to people or property, yet they were detained and refused entry. Meanwhile, more than 400 Islamic State jihadis from the UK have returned there, and a massive child sex abuse scandal in Telford that is even larger than the Rotherham scandal was recently revealed. Indigenous Europeans are banned, while foreigners who enter the UK illegally are welcomed. It is therefore clear that the British authorities are acting exactly as Francis described.

7. The state is interested in power, not truth. Islam is a religion, not a race, so criticizing it cannot be racist. Seeking to preserve and protect one’s own racial and cultural identity does not mean that one hates people of other races and cultures. For leftists to claim that people should not be banned for their beliefs while cheering the ban of people who disagree with them is partisan hackery. But these facts are of little political relevance in the real world when those who wield state power have an anti-factual agenda.

8. Antifa is the paramilitary wing of the Cathedral. Sellner’s speaking engagements were canceled and his deportation was caused by threats of violence made by Antifa. By kowtowing to violent leftists, the British government has made itself the high to their low against the middle of rightfully concerned native Europeans. Antifa, meanwhile, serves as foot soldiers of the status quo by doing what the establishment wants done but cannot be seen directly doing for political reasons.

9. Ignoring the legitimate grievances of right-wing activists will not make them go away. Despite the lies of the establishment press, many people involved with nativist causes in Europe are not Nazi sympathizers, terrorists, or anything of the sort. They are simply common people of European descent who have legitimate grievances about being demographically replaced by their own governments without their consent, losing parts of their homelands to hostile immigrants, the silencing of European women victimized by Muslim men, an economic system which threw them overboard decades ago, and the rise of identity politics among non-whites following decades of leftist agitation. Ignoring the concerns of European right-wing nationalists will be ineffective in the long-term. Instead, the repressed political movements will manifest in a manner that is less open and more violent.

10. This will get worse before it gets better. Because the problems outlined in the above observations are unlikely to be addressed and resolved by the appropriate parties, incidents like these will become more frequent. Unfortunately, humans tend not to do what is necessary to solve difficult problems until they run out of other options, so we can expect more right-wing activists to be banned from the UK, hate speech laws to become more strict, and migrant crimes to become more frequent until the British people decide to stop suffering in silence and revolt against the elites who are ruining their society.

Book Review: Homo Deus

Homo Deus is a book about the possible future of humanity by Israeli historian Yuval Noah Harari. The book is divided into three sections and eleven chapters, each of which covers a different part of the history of Homo sapiens and our potential futures.

Harari begins with an introductory chapter in which he considers how the future will likely be fundamentally different from the past. He correctly credits modern agriculture, evidence-based medicine, and nuclear weapons for the relative lack of war, famine, and plague in the current era. He then predicts that improvements that raised the minimum standard for the least among us will also be used to upgrade those who are well-off, the logical conclusion of which is a serious push for immortality and designed happiness. Harari gives the resulting superhumans the binomial name Homo deus, due to their similarity to polytheistic gods of Greek and Hindu tradition. The chapter concludes by contemplating the implications of such a change in human nature.

Part I deals with human prehistory, explaining how Homo sapiens came to dominate life on Earth. Here, Harari takes a dim view of our changed relationship toward animals since the Agricultural Revolution, noting the cruelty of factory farming and the extinction of many wild animals. He discusses the corresponding changes in religions as people came to view themselves not as just another part of nature, but as having dominion over it. His description of humanism as a religious movement would certainly be disputed by secular humanists, but it is an insightful observation for certain meanings of the word ‘religious.’ The third chapter begins with a scientific case against the existence of souls, while considering why this case is unpopular with the masses. The difference in consciousness between animals, humans, and artificial intelligences is discussed at length. Harari makes the important observation that the ability to coordinate ever larger numbers of people is what sets Homo sapiens apart from animals and the other human species that are now extinct. This coordination and cooperation is then applied to several examples of political and economic exploitation and upheaval. Part I segues into Part II by introducing the concept of intersubjectivity, which is a level of meaning that is neither universal nor personal, but shared between people. The power of intersubjective beliefs is shown to explain many things, from societal customs to the rise and fall of social orders.

The second part begins by examining the effect that intersubjectivity had on the development of civilization. The comparison between ancient religions and modern corporations is an interesting analogy that can help one make sense of civilization in the second millennium BC. The roles of writing and money in facilitating the expansion of empires is discussed, but Harari skips over the natural development of money as commodities and moves on to fiat currency as though it were the origin of money. The positives and negatives of intersubjective beliefs overruling objective facts are explored through various examples, with the negative tending to outweigh the positive. After all, one cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality, even if doing so appears to work for a time. The fifth chapter deals with the development of science and how it coexists with religious beliefs. Here, Harari defines a religion as “anything that confers superhuman legitimacy on human social structures” and “legitimizes human norms and values by arguing that they reflect superhuman laws,” which produces some interesting results. He considers liberals and communists to be religious, even though some of them do not meet the aforementioned definition. He advises cooperation between religion and science so that ethical judgments from religion and factual statements from science can be synthesized into practical guidelines, but warns against the tendency of religions to blur the line between ethical judgments and factual statements. Harari compares the rivalry between religious establishments and spiritual ascetics to the struggle between collectivism and individualism. He comes to a conclusion that would please any reactionary: if individualists win, they inevitably form a collective to protect their individualism. He concludes the chapter with an important observation: religion and science care less about truth than about order and power, respectively. This sets the stage for the rest of the book, which explores this order-power collaboration between science and humanism, as well as what might replace it.

Chapter 6 begins by presenting modernity as a sort of social contract in which people give up meaning in exchange for power. Most of the rest of the chapter deals with economic matters. Harari is mostly on point here, noticing the mindless consumerism that modernity can foster when people come to believe that growth and more material wealth will solve all problems. However, he goes astray when discussing the development of credit and loans, in that these were not rare in earlier times due to economic hardship so much as religious and political prohibitions on usury. He presents a concept called Ark Syndrome, which is a belief among some elites that if they ruin the environment, it will not affect them because future scientists will be able to create a safe haven for them while leaving the masses to die. Though it is good for the masses to recommend that such elites be kept out of power, Harari presents no credible method for doing so. Although he understands well the price of the modern deal, it never occurs to him that people may someday decide en masse that the cost is not worthwhile. He also makes the bizarre claim that trust vanishes when essential functions such as courts and police are for sale, when the truth is that monopolies on such services cannot be trusted because they have no competition to incentivize them to serve the customer.

The seventh chapter explores the role of humanism in letting people have meaning along with power. Unfortunately, Harari seems unaware of rational secular ethical theories, which present objective morality without appeal to the supernatural. Unlike humanism, these take a dim view of extramarital affairs, homosexuality, and other deviances as affronts to natural law. He shows how modernity has turned art, economics, literature, and politics into degenerate forms by teaching people to trust in their own feelings, but of course he views this as progress. And though humanists have a more enlightened view of war, modernity has produced the most destructive wars in human history. Harari discusses the history of epistemology, but leaves out the entire category of rationalism and a priori truths. This becomes quite glaring in the ensuing section on political history, which details the splitting of humanism into liberalism, Marxism, and fascism. Even so, he comes to a correct conclusion that is all too rare in mainstream discussion:

“Auschwitz should serve as a blood-red warning sign rather than as a black curtain that hides entire sections of the human horizon. Evolutionary humanism played an important part in the shaping of modern culture, and it is likely to play an even greater role in the shaping of the twenty-first century.”

Harari’s telling of history from 1914 to present is mostly correct, though he views the transition from dictatorship to democracy and from mutual aid societies to welfare statism as an unqualified positive. While he sees the inadequacy of traditional religious thought and the ambiguity of modern Chinese political ideology, he again fails to contemplate either a secular reactionary or an anarcho-capitalist alternative to modern liberalism. That said, his advice to movements that would take power to familiarize themselves with the technology of the current age is well-heeded. The chapter concludes with an important question: what will happen to liberalism once technology can routinely outsmart the individual that liberalism venerates?

In the final part, Harari considers the implications of artificial intelligence and genetic engineering. He makes a scientific case against free will and in favor of a combination of determinism and randomness, but this is an example of being empirical to the extent of anti-rationality. It does not occur to him that arguing for hard determinism ends in performative contradiction, and thus one must allow free will within a deterministic “bounding box,” so to speak. His argument against individuality fails because although the human essence can be divided into parts, they are still contained within a person’s physical body, which is what people generally mean by a self. However, the peak-end effect discussed here is an important observation in psychology. Harari then explores the meaning of life, along with the history of weaponizing the ability to give meaning to peoples’ lives for the purpose of political power.

The subtitle of the book is A Brief History of Tomorrow, and Harari finally gets to this in Chapter 9. He highlights three possibilities which may undo the status quo: that humans will no longer be of economic or military use, that humanity may retain value while individual humans lose it, and/or that upgraded superhumans will still have value but ordinary Homo sapiens will not. His predictions could have been lifted directly from Mencius Moldbug, though Harari never cites him. After showing at exhaustive length how computers and algorithms are systematically replacing human action and decisions, he posits what Moldbug calls the Dire Problem: that there will be masses of people with no function to fulfill but who drain resources by staying alive. Harari even considers a type of Virtual Option as a possible remedy. Democratic elections also fall by the wayside as algorithms come to know us better than we know ourselves, thus removing any need for the ballot box. Sufficiently powerful algorithms may become sovereign, just as neoreaction claims that good governance is self-legitimizing. Finally, the drastic inequality between Homo sapiens and Homo deus will reveal liberalism and modernity as aberrations rather than a Whiggish end stage. Harari writes,

“Unlike in the twentieth century, when the elite had a stake in fixing the problems of the poor because they were militarily and economically vital, in the twenty-first century the most efficient (albeit ruthless) strategy may be to let go of the useless third-class carriages, and dash forward with the first class only.”

The final two chapters consider two potential secular religions which may replace humanism as the dominant source of meaning in life: techno-humanism and data religion. Techno-humanism focuses on upgrading humans into a post-human form, while data religion (or dataism) calls for the replacement of humans with artificial beings. Harari contemplates the limited understanding of the human mind, in that we know about little other than a few subgroups of current humans, let alone former human species, let alone other animals. He also laments the lack of study on healthy minds rather than ill minds. He sees an important danger in techno-humanism: it may come to focus on downgrading the masses so that they lack the means to cause trouble for the elites. Harari then asks another interesting question:

“Techno-humanism expects our desires to choose which mental abilities to develop, and to thereby determine the shape of future minds. Yet what would happen once technological progress makes it possible to reshape and engineer our desires themselves?”

Thus techno-humanism either succumbs to dataism as Harari suggests, or as per George Zarkadakis, we rein in artificial intelligence so that it cannot overpower us. The former presents a novel method for interpreting the world, but the latter does not seem to cross Harari’s mind. For example, dataism views economic and political systems as different types of data processors, with the more efficient ones winning out over time. Dataists view this as the reason that capitalism defeats communism, rather than any human concerns. This also leads Harari to predict the disappearance of democracy once democracies become too inefficient at processing data. However, his view of market failure as the market doing what is good for itself rather than what is good for humanity or the world is confused because the market does not exist independently of humanity or the world. Next, Harari covers what he considers to be the tenants of Dataism, such as opposition to intellectual monopolies or any other barriers to the free flow of information, a strictly functional approach to humanity, and a need to turn human experiences into shareable data. He notices that ideologies and social systems tend to limit one’s ability to think of alternatives to those ideologies and social systems, but seems limited in doing the same for techno-humanism and dataism.

Though one must understand the past to predict the future, an overly large part of the book is devoted to the past. The narrow range of possibilities that Harari explores for humanity’s future keeps the book from being what it could have been, as does his lack of familiarity with secular reaction and neoreaction. Homo Deus is still an entertaining read with a great deal of useful information, but it showcases Harari’s intellectual weaknesses just as much as his strengths.

Rating: 3/5

On Libertarianism and Statecraft, Part V: Aristocracy, Republicanism, and State

<<<Part IV                                                                                                Part VI>>>

Author’s note: The main themes of this series will be further expounded upon in my upcoming book Anarcho-Monarchism, which will be available in April.

Introduction

In Part IV, the logistical question of merging the rule of the aristocracy with the absolute property held by each person was considered. To concede that individual sovereignty is invalid would effectively defeat all libertarian values. To concede that central sovereignty is invalid would defeat the purpose and role of statecraft. To resolve this, one must look to the nature of contracts. When multiple people sign a contract, they do so for a simple sociological reason. Reduced to economic terms, this reason is a desire to benefit from signing that contract. Whenever people sign contracts, they do so with the expectation of improving their own lives. From this, we can derive a theory of sovereignty that can remain valid without disproving either individual sovereignty or central sovereignty.

The Aristocracy and the Common Man

Other than personal profit, a common reason for establishing contracts is to reconcile multiple interests within society, the contract is the only institution that can make conflict into collaboration. This has two important implications. First, in a low-trust society, contracts ensure that the society is not in perpetual chaos, as they channel conflict into production. Second, it means that when people are already prone to collaboration, contracts become mostly redundant because interests are already synthesized.

If the interests of people are in a significant degree of conflict, the end result will be antagonism which will result in mutual violence. This has the potential to cause the destruction of a society. It may result in less destruction than nation-states have caused, but destruction should be avoided if possible. If nothing else, it provides a pressing need to reconsider libertarian assumptions and to provide a mechanism by which this type of destruction can be avoided.

However, this does not mean that libertarianism is only attainable when there is high trust. With proper use of contracts, even a society with conflicting interests can function. But this requires introducing a degree of central sovereignty into libertarianism. A contract must synthesize the individually sovereign owners of property into a larger managerial government. The government will assume managerial duties since the absolute owners of property wish to maintain a peaceful co-existence. The government must then sign a bilateral contract with the property owner to allow him the ability to ensure that any inherent conflict in society does not result in widespread chaos.

Aristocracy and State

Contrary to the contractual society, the state removes the most qualified and socially adept from governance. In essence, the aristocracy cannot govern, as there is no requirement for the state to synthesize the interests within society. The state retains its rule even when it does not properly manage the territory it controls. When the state does not need to exercise proper statecraft, the result will be an abolition of any proper monarchy and aristocracy. The natural aristocrats are the direct enemy of the democratic state, and it must suppress those who are fit to govern.

The only way to ensure that those who are fit to govern will do so is to abolish the state. Proper statecraft can only occur if the state does not put up an artificial barrier for the sake of devastating the upper class. When the capable aristocrats can assume the social role of harmonizing interests, they can ensure that society is maintained. If the state prevents the function of the aristocracy, this will be impossible. This has happened throughout history; aristocracies are upheld until they succumb to a violent revolution. The new aristocracies then devolve to be even worse than the previous aristocracy until they are similarly overthrown. The state creates a perpetual inflationary system of aristocracy where accumulating value in aristocracy becomes impossible.

This can also be viewed as preventing the tragedy of the commons. If one views society itself as a form of property, one will see that each person motivated by self-interest will try to exhaust the property of the society for his own gain. In this view, proper aristocrats are those who can functionally privatize the commons of the society to ensure that no parasitism is tolerated. The tragedy of the commons can only be solved by eliminating the commons, and the only way to do so is with a proper aristocracy. The economic errors of communism also apply to the social realm, and are as devastating to society as they are to economics.

Instating an aristocracy may seem counter-intuitive to a libertarian who sees little disutility in owning property. Why would anyone willingly give up absolute control over their property? Even if society as property needs to be protected to prevent internal conflict, is forsaking absolute property worth the gain from increased cohesion? Is full ownership of property not the ideal of a society?

Property and the State

It is important to avoid thinking within a purely statist frame of reference. It is true that giving up one’s property within the frame of a state is a suicidal mode of action. However, this ignores the fact that trust plays an important role within governance. People cannot trust the state because relations with the state are not reciprocal. Without monopolized violence, relationships between the property owners and managers become reciprocal.

The ideal of the confederation is that the lower, more decentralized actors unite with a central agent to reconcile conflicting interests. This collaborative system becomes a confederation of absolute sovereigns led by the first among equals, a man among men. This is the ideal of libertarian statecraft: the management of property without the state in such a way that benefits each person. It is unnecessary to forsake individual self-ownership or absolute control over property. We only need to integrate social systems into libertarianism.

Aristocracy and Republicanism

This leads us to two options. We can have low-trust monarchic individualism or high-trust republican communalism. There is no sustainable option for a stateless society that is both individualistic and republican. This monarchic individualism has a counter-balance to prevent any possible tyranny, in that the aristocracy in itself adds a sort of confederacy. If the aristocrats are those who are the most invested into society, any anti-social action by the monarch will lead to action against the monarch by the aristocracy. Thus, the libertarian confederation will be more perfect, as it combines two degrees of limitation upon sovereignty to prevent anti-social action. The monarch needs the testimony of the aristocracy and is thus accountable to the entire class of those most invested into society. The aristocracy then needs the testimony of the society they invested into to remain in power. A libertarian society creates a market for a libertarian aristocracy. Libertarian aristocracy, in turn, creates a market for libertarian monarchy.

The sort of stateless republicanism that most libertarians want is only possible within a high-trust society. The word ‘republicanism’ may seem inaccurate to describe the libertarian system. However, a market for defense and law is dangerously close to the republican ideals of popular governance and general will. Interests first need to be shared across the entirety of a society for private law and defense to work.

When interests are already shared, a sort of liberal capitalism becomes borderline impossible. The purpose of adopting a capitalist system is to alleviate various conflicts through the market system of supply and demand. If all members of a society share interests and motivations, they will not be driven towards capitalism as a system since it becomes redundant. Thus, the free market can effectively abandon liberal capitalism provided that trust is sufficiently high. This means that when one benefits from other members of the society gaining wealth, communal economies will be proper strategies insofar as they are efficient.

The church and the community will increasingly socialize wealth in a high-trust society. Even if the church were to be abandoned and if the entirety of mankind became atheistic, there would still be a social institution that acts as a center of society. This new institution would still have the incentives to socialize prosperity to prevent undue misery. This is simply a facet of healthy human empathy and compassion towards the in-group.

This is not a bad thing from an outside perspective. Any strategy of production has to change with a change in society. Free markets will lead to social markets if a high-trust society is established. This is neither inherently desirable nor undesirable; it only serves as a fundamental extension of the amoral calculus of the free market. Though this may appear to go against the free market or support socialism, it simply results from people deriving personal profit from ending human misery as a community if the interests of people are tied to their communities.

Statism and Harmony

Having considered the options for property management available in a libertarian society, it is now necessary to critique the state beyond the fact that it removes aristocrats from their rightful station. First, states have expanded far beyond their optimal size and are bloated beyond all reason. The modern state encompasses land areas far beyond what any singular agency could manage.

This by itself is a death-blow to the state, at least on a theoretical level. States will eventually be unable to expand enough to sustain themselves and will collapse. Unless the forces of liberalization could somehow manage to create enough prosperity to pay off all accumulated debts, the current world order must collapse in some form or another. The liberal state must give way to some future order, and it is in our interest that it is not tyrannical socialism or a return to feudalism in the modern age. This is not to say that feudalism is inherently bad; when confronted with foreign aggression, it can be advantageous to organize along arbitrary lines of territory and protection. However, the feudal economy and the arbitrary nature of feudal land titles is unfit for the modern age.

Second, the state provides neither harmonizing aristocracy nor liberating republicanism. The state can only serve as a tyrant and as a detriment to society. Third, the state cannot offer mechanical markets or socially accountable property. What the state can do is to create a system in which irrational and selfish actions of the state are hallowed, which it does because all actions that the state takes when acting as an economic and social agent are irrational. The actions of the state may be correct at times and the state can produce good results even while lacking reason, but this is not due to rational decision-making. The irrational interests of the state can produce desirable outcomes insofar as they conform to the rational interests of the society itself. This is inconsistent but not unlikely. The interest of the state is to create an empire and centralize power. Any other considerations are secondary at best since they do not directly support the interests of the state.

Since the statist system tends to be exceedingly low-trust due to the complete lack of accountability, centralization within the state tends to be inefficient. The state cannot provide social trust or reconcile interests, so it must always bring political organization into the realm of conflict. Because it offers violence on the market, the state will always be the nexus of various conflicts in society. This will further deteriorate trust and increase the necessity for an aristocracy that the state cannot provide.

The Market for Violence

When the state offers aggressive violence for less cost than private actors while suppressing those private actors through its monopoly on criminal punishment, it incentivizes the purchase of violence through the state. The purpose of this may be to achieve favorable legislation, occupational licensing, no-bid contracts, or war profiteering. When the state sells violence, the actors who buy that violence will profit. Since state violence is a scarce commodity, all factions within a society must compete to avoid being victimized by state violence.

Because the state does not have to be reciprocal, it retains its position as the manager of property no matter how much destruction it causes. A corollary of this is that the state will be able to auction off the property of those who live within its territory. By paying enough into the state, one can usurp the property of others through eminent domain. In practice, all ownership becomes a lease from the state. The state can profit from the ability of selling the property of its citizens. Thus, it is firmly in the interest of the state to exercise this ability. The best anyone can do within the state is to fight in the state’s courts against their property being sold out from under them.

Conclusion

The aforementioned problems do not occur within a system that holds all parties to a real contract, and absolute property is not liable to be sold without one’s consent. But here we find more problems. How does authority interact with liberty? How can we ensure that libertarian authority will not become a state? How can we prevent the follies of the state within a libertarian system? How do we ensure that our property is not liable for sale once we hand over the management of that property? These questions will be dealt with in Part VI.

<<<Part IV                                                                                                Part VI>>>

On Libertarianism and Statecraft, Part IV: Libertarian Governance

<<<Part III                                                                                                 Part V>>>

Author’s note: The main themes of this series will be further expounded upon in my upcoming book Anarcho-Monarchism, which will be available in April.

Introduction

Part III concluded by asserting that without governance in a libertarian social order, each property holder is vulnerable to social and economic issues, to say nothing of conquest. But the reasons provided did not form a definitive case for why it is necessarily true. There still could be an appeal to private defense agencies, decentralized collaboration, and independence. Thus, let us consider the fundamental reasons why people are so drawn to governance.

The Necessity of Governance

A benefit of governance is that it can regulate both the economy and society. This is completely counter-intuitive to almost any libertarian, but there is a good case to be made for government regulation on a completely anti-state basis. Provided that government is formed voluntarily, it will regulate effectively at least insofar as fulfilling the wishes of the public is effective. But as libertarians, should we not be opposed to economic and social intervention? Should we not challenge social systems whenever they encroach upon private affairs? Individualism would imply that whenever social systems invade the lives of individuals, the results will be undesirable. This is certainly true insofar as we are talking about the democratic nation-state, which is rarely held accountable for what it does. However, if governance is completely voluntary, then it fulfills important roles via regulation. First, it prevents social problems caused by incohesion that people wish to avoid. If, for example, the majority of a population want to end drug use, they would need to unite into a covenant to do so. By imposing a cost of, for example, mandatory rehabilitation for people caught with drugs alongside a confiscation of any drugs on all property in an area, a covenant community could greatly reduce drug problems in their society.

If one finds this to be disagreeable, one can attempt to find property owners who do not wish to impose any such conditions or withdraw one’s sovereign property from associations that require such conditions. No one is entitled to use drugs on the property of someone who disallows it or to violate a contract that binds one to abstain from drugs. Each person could certainly exit such a contract by the means specified therein and be completely free to do whatever they themselves want. Though contracts without an exit are unlikely, it would be a matter of personal responsibility not to enter into such an agreement. (This is unlikely because most people desire to prevent any imposition of costs that could arrive with changing circumstances and unchanging contracts.)

Community and Individual

Whereas most people wish to have their communities conform to their personal values, it is of vital importance to have a mechanism by which this is possible. That mechanism is the structure of governance that would take shape in a completely voluntary society. We can all remain nihilistically uninvolved with our communities, but this is dispreferable and value-destructive for most people. Furthermore, even keeping a purely individualist view, one can see a community as a market with people contributing to it and, in exchange, receiving status. This also applies in reverse as whenever people go against the community, they must be sanctioned. This must be the case because a community is formed of individual interactions which create either utility or disutility within the social realm.

From this, we can logically infer that a progressive society is fundamentally communistic, as it forces people to subsidize undesirable behaviors. The same problems that appear whenever communism is introduced into economics appear whenever progressivism is introduced into society. Progressivism makes exclusion socially unacceptable, and its adherents expect degenerates and anti-socials to receive status. This is contrary to nature, so there is a pressing need to end progressivism by privatizing social interactions.

Governance is also necessary due to the variability of preferences. It is easy to demonstrate this by considering what different anarcho-capitalists think about economics. Some favor corporations, some support fractional reserve banking, some are virulently against unions, and some think intellectual property is a right. If there cannot even be economic consensus across different populations of anarcho-capitalists, then there can be no expectations that society as a whole can agree on one cohesive standard in a spontaneous manner.

Thus, to make economic transactions practical, there is a necessity for the enforcement of universal standards within a community. If there is no agreement on the standards for transactions, the cost for every transaction becomes much larger. For example, if one tried to haggle in a Western country, one would be a bother to shopkeepers. On the other hand, if one refrained from haggling in the Middle East, one would surely be overcharged. This is an issue even when everyone agrees on pure and radical libertarianism. However, the only real solution to this is to have a meta-structure in which there is a foundational market for governance. This is the only way in which to ultimately rehabilitate varying preferences.

Contracts and Non-Aggression

The fundamental philosophy of libertarianism is rooted in respect for property rights. But the real productive aspect of libertarianism is that it ensures the ability to form contracts pertaining to one’s own property alongside the right to organize in whatever way anyone sees fit. This means that libertarianism is compatible with any form of organization insofar as it is contractual as opposed to being coercive. Moreover, not only is libertarianism compatible with all contractual relations, but contractual relations are at the basis of all social and economic growth.

When people give their voluntary consent, they do so because all parties expect to benefit from a contractual association. However, no one intrinsically benefits from plain non-violence, insofar as that person is not on the perpetual receiving end of violence. However, if we imagined a non-violent society in which each person would be relegated to a life in a forest without any access to water or electricity, we would certainly see a drop in the living standards despite the non-violence. Society is ultimately necessary for any personal benefit. Non-aggression is the best way to organize a society, but it necessitates that a society be useful for individuals. There is a theoretical possibility that aggression could result in greater social wealth, but this is only true if aggression creates society. This should be the foremost faulty conception that libertarians dispute.

Having property rights and an absolute right to contract establishes the best potential to benefit from the structure of libertarianism. The real motivation to have a libertarian society is not the philosophy of libertarianism but rather the metastructure of efficient contract within that society. The only compromise inherent is that each person can either accept or reject the contract. The terms of the contract are subject to change, but there is no need to adopt mutually disagreeable contracts. This is contrasted with the state, where all relations are fundamentally based on compromise as the state makes decisions by accounting for a variety of special interest groups.

The Form of Governance

But how could this sort of contractual governance emerge in a libertarian society, and what form would it take? It is obvious that there is some need for contractual governance as property has to be managed, but the form of governance is still highly subject to controversy. The problems within governance based purely on contract are largely threefold. First, all people within a given area have to join their ‘domains’ and agree to be governed. This may be changed with the growing digitization of society where we can find ourselves in allegiances without physical contact. There is a distinct possibility for more complex systems using digital contracts. However, there will never be a society that can remain wholly digital because people need physical social contact. Second, there is a need for some people to govern those who agree to be governed. Third, the people who are governed cannot be taxed or coerced to maintain the union. The government needs to be funded completely out of personal volition and not coercion by the government.

Fortunately, all of these problems are easily solved because each person is motivated to move away from unconnected instability into governance by joining a social structure. As contractual government structures are purely voluntary entities, each person seeks to join the one that produces the most value. As these structures benefit greatly from economies of scale until they exceed their optimal size, governance will offer more benefit to late-comers than to early-comers, all else being equal. This does not mean that each productive late-comer is not a benefit to all early-comers; it simply means that the people who take the most risk for the least reward are those who form governments.

The establishment of such a structure has a large cost because it is not easy to set up a government, even without forcing people to submit to it. These structures will tend to be confederal, as each person wants to retain their sovereignty while delegating part of the management of their property to the managerial entity. This creates a social contract which is actually valid because its members are free to leave it if it becomes value-destructive. However, until the governance structure becomes overtly value-destructive, each person would have to take upon themselves the cost of their own exit.

The government wants to prevent exit as much as possible to maintain its role in society. A governmental collapse imposes a giant burden upon those who are in charge of the government at the moment of collapse. To prevent this collapse in a libertarian order, the government must be constantly and perpetually value-productive to the greatest majority of its people. The government has to cater to the population and ensure that the relations between government and property owners are truly reciprocal. The issue of such a government rejecting libertarianism and trying to force people to submit to it will be discussed in Part V.

Those Who Govern

There is still the question of who will govern when there is no destructive selection for governance. It seems difficult to have a system of governance without vested structures, but this is false. There will always be the people who are most fit to govern as per the division of labor. These are the natural elites, the community leaders, the aristocracy of men who do not need to initiate the use of force to have respect and status. The people who would ensure proper statecraft would be the people who can demonstrate their worth. The only requirement for this is a truly privatized social order where social benefits result in personal profits.

This is contrasted with the current regime where those who govern are those who can be the best demagogues or use aggressive violence most effectively. There is never any requirement for testimony to prove that those who govern are apt in statecraft. There is never a demonstration of merit aside from rhetoric. The best way to have great men govern society is to allow free competition in governance so that those who are great can govern as they are able to demonstrate their worth.

In essence, the liberty that can allow for a contractual society ensures a proper hierarchy in matters of statecraft. The most capable will be the ones in charge of government. But governments by many men are inherently prone to conflict. Furthermore, all additional men in governance impose a risk on those who might be burdened with their responsibility. Under unlimited liability, all members of a government have responsibility over the actions of that government. Thus, if the number of people who are in that government were to increase, those already in that government would have to shoulder the additional risk.

There are only two ways to resolve this. One is to have the greatest of all men take upon himself the ultimate burden in his own society. This is the owner of the government, or the trustee who is in ultimate charge of it. In other terms, this is the libertarian king. The other is hyper-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction that make conflict far too damaging to consider. But this goes against the preferences of a great majority of people. Even so, it may be desirable to have nuclear armament regulated by an aristocratic upper class to ensure that devastating arms do not end up in the hands of people who have nothing to lose. It is always preferable to arm upstanding people, as they are less likely to initiate violence because they will bear greater costs for it.

An aristocratic monarchy is the natural form of a libertarian social order, just as each well-managed business has similar organizational principles. The libertarian monarch could just as well be called the CEO, and the natural aristocracy could be called the shareholders. Both the classical and corporate allegory are fit for the form of governance that would emerge within a libertarian society. However, as each man is the sovereign of his own property and yet has this greater sovereign over them, how can the interests be harmonized into a cohesive political system without excessive conflict? This may seem contradictory to the entire notion of sovereignty, but the sovereigns are divided in their capacity. The individual sovereigns become only sovereign over themselves while the sovereignty of the government only extends to the structure of that governance. This results in successfully dividing sovereignty to create the perfect confederation, thus squaring the proverbial circle.

Conclusion

To answer the remaining questions in this article, it is necessary to create a collaborative theory of statecraft and to have a consistent theory of governance. We cannot simply impose the statist framework on a libertarian society and expect it to work. And a critique without a consistent alternative is often a futile exercise. Additionally, our critique remains woefully insufficient from a reactionary point of view. Thus, Part V will begin the tasks of removing statecraft from the area of interpersonal conflict, forming a theory of statecraft which is compatible with libertarian principles of trade and non-aggression, and demonstrating why this is preferable to a statist society from a reactionary standpoint.

<<<Part III                                                                                                 Part V>>>

Agreeing With Statists For The Wrong Reasons: Anti-Discrimination Laws

<<<Episode II                                                                                                    Episode IV>>>

In the latter half of the 20th century, governments throughout the West passed legislation that forbids discrimination on the basis of race, gender, age, religion, sexual orientation, and other such factors. The mainstream narrative says that the market failed to protect people from evil bigots, so the state had to step in to save these poor minorities. The truth, as usual, is that the state caused this problem. This was done by legally requiring business owners to deny service to certain types of people, officially segregating urban communities and public services, and teaching children a bigoted curriculum in government schools. While it would have sufficed to simply repeal all laws that mandated bigotry and segregation, statists will never let an opportunity to seize more control over people’s lives and liberties go to waste. The end result was that they kept violating private property rights and freedom of association, but inverted the purpose.

Given the ugliness of historical bigotry, the popular ignorance of historical truth, the backlash received by anyone who openly supports the rights of private property owners to exclude people, and the continued indoctrination of new generations with cultural Marxism, eliminating anti-discrimination laws by straightforward means is all but politically impossible. Fortunately for people who care about liberty and correctly understand it, there is another way. Let us consider the alternative method of not only agreeing with statists for the wrong reasons, but of amplifying and accelerating their laws all the way to their destruction.

In order to destroy an enemy properly, one must first understand that enemy. Contrary to popular belief, anti-discrimination laws inherently persecute the majority, for if discrimination occurred (or was at least thought to occur) randomly, no one would find them to be necessary. Those who support such laws must therefore build them on foundational beliefs in white supremacy, institutionalized misogyny, etc. Words such as ‘racism’ and ‘sexism,’ which once had clearly defined meanings, become corrupted to associate a present political opponent with a hated enemy from the past and weaponized to identify targets to punish with enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. More skillful linguistic warriors have invented new words such as ‘homophobia’ and ‘transphobia’ to further demonize majorities and non-deviants. Over time, leftist activists come to believe their own nonsense and fall into a holiness spiral that results in the social justice warriors that plague college campuses today.

When these rhetorical weapons are aimed at businesses, a lucrative shakedown scheme emerges. Businesses can be sued for discrimination, and civil court proceedings are effectively rigged against them. The standard is preponderance of the evidence (50 percent plus 1) rather than beyond a reasonable doubt (>99 percent), and the defendants are being asked to prove a negative. Actually attempting to prove this negative is usually an inexhaustible proof by exhaustion which will require more resources than settling with the plaintiffs, so fiduciary responsibility to shareholders of the business necessitates the latter response. Thus, leftist activists acquire vast sums of money and employment as diversity officers in human resource departments.

This has what many people would charitably call unintended consequences, but the well-informed need not be so charitable. For the aforementioned reasons, no one can mount an effective challenge to anti-discrimination through legislative reversal or civil disobedience. But just like any other behavior that statists seek to ban, making a behavior illegal forces it underground instead of eliminating it. Once discrimination is outlawed, only outlaws will directly discriminate, but others will continue to discriminate while cloaking their actions behind a standard that is legally permissible. An employer who does not want to hire women or a baker who does not want to cater to a gay wedding will instead say that an employee is unqualified or that the bakery is too busy to bake the cake. Over time, virtues such as education, experience, and industriousness will take on a bigoted connotation and thus lose status. Moreover, the positive aspects of discrimination in terms of having standards will disappear from the culture, causing the proliferation of stupidity, incompetence, ugliness, and all manner of criminal and degenerate behavior.

Anti-discrimination laws, like most other leftist instruments, are written in nice universalist language without reference to any specific groups of people. This is done to deceive both the traditional majority populations who would otherwise call out their subversiveness and the individualists who would otherwise call out their authoritarian collectivism. But as explained above, their actual use is always to oppose majority populations as well as those who have traditionally held power. The question, then, is how to awaken the majority populations and individualists to what the left is doing. The answer is twofold. First, pass what would appear to be redundant legislation, given the aforementioned universalist language. Explicitly protect whites, heterosexuals, Christians, and cisgendered people with an anti-discrimination law. Moderate leftists will complain that these are redundant and be shown to be wrong when the enforcement of these protections has had time to take effect. Radical leftists will protest the new law, saying that it is unacceptable to have any legal protections for whites, heterosexuals, Christians, and cisgendered people. If the reaction of social justice warriors to the tame idea of papering college campuses with signs that say “It’s OK to be white” is any indication, this bait will be impossible for them to resist. Their responses will clearly demonstrate both their hostility to these groups and their authoritarian collectivism.

The second part is to expand anti-discrimination laws to cover political beliefs, employment status, and any other category that can be imagined. The idea is that if everyone is special, then no one is special. If every group is a protected class, then no group is more protected than any other. From that point, the case can be made to remove all of the anti-discrimination laws in order to bring private property rights, freedom of association, honest labor relations, and the ability to have standards back into the economy. Opposing any changes from truly universal anti-discrimination would be political suicide for elected officials, as the businesses that donate to their campaigns would be clamoring for the lifting of such damaging laws. Anyone who seeks to return to the recent status quo ante could be demonized as bigoted against the majority population, who would be newly awakened to the leftist strategy.

It goes without saying that this will be very destructive in the short-term. However, the long-term goals of eliminating anti-discrimination laws and informing the left that powers they create will be used against them are well worth the momentary cost. The political impossibility of simply repealing such laws makes it necessary to agree with statists for the wrong reasons on the issue of discrimination.

<<<Episode II                                                                                                    Episode IV>>>