As is true for most of this sites audience, I too came from the libertarian movement. Libertarianism is a very easy worldview to get sucked into, with anarchy usually following. I don’t, and we shouldn’t blame anyone for being a libertarian, it is the natural reaction of European peoples to their impending destruction.
When vastly different tribes are forced to inhabit the same living space, it is inevitable that conflict and the loss of social capital will ensue. Western high trust societal structures can’t be upheld by non-Europeans, so it logically follows that in an increasingly non-European society these structures will be destroyed. In this way libertarianism can be viewed as an escapist ideology, used to ignore the loss of social capital caused by multiculturalism. Libertarians use libertarianism to shelter themselves from undesirable changes to the demographics of their country and the communal decline that invariably follows.
The Libertarian Mind
Modern libertarians champion themselves as “edgy” or “fringe,” but in reality libertarianism is just the redirection of energy from traditionalism into a more acceptable ideology. When I use the word libertarian I refer not to economics, but to “cultural libertarianism.” I’m not in anyway trying to deconstruct economic freedom. Indeed libertarians are good people (most of them anyhow, obviously the deontological libertarians aren’t, which I’ll go into more later), but they have allowed themselves to be sucked into a falsely oppositional ideology.
One thing libertarians, and most people for that matter, like to ignore is the role that genetics play in political opinions. Everyone at birth is predisposed to certain political beliefs, not directly but rather through personality. These personalities have different general political leanings, and they manifest themselves largely relatively to the environment. Not everyone is as susceptible to beliefs based on genetics, as environment does play a role, but to ignore it completely is folly. Indeed you can make a “logical” argument for any political ideology, Marx did it for communism, Rothbard did for libertarianism, and so on – but it should be noted that most who follow any ideology are not intellectuals, and are doing so largely because of a combination of genetics and environment.
This is something European fascists largely realized in the 20th century, and even lead to them abandoning intellectualism entirely. Within the right wing libertarian community (right wing here is used colloquially, I am referring to pro-capitalists) we can break libertarians into two basic groups. K selected and r selected (If you haven’t researched the topic, you should). It is my hypothesis that most of consequentialist libertarians are K selected, while the deontological voluntaryists are mostly r selected. This leads to the consequentialist libertarians taking hardline stances on morality, even if they don’t promote state intervention. The deontological libertarians are often far left, browse their communities for any length of time and you’ll find yourself neck deep in levels of degeneracy not even most liberals or progressives can rival.
We often hear people claim themselves to be anarcho (insert hyphenated term here ists). While these labels do allow us to easily tell the difference of the mindsets of the individual, in practical terms it doesn’t mean much. For something to really be part of an “ideology,” you must have a conceivable plan by which you will enforce it. Out of the two groups, “anarcho-capitalists” and “anarcho-communists,” it seems that while neither have a particularly good case for attaching a formal economic system to their ideology, “anarcho-communists” come the closest. “Ancaps” make the faulty assumption that capitalism is the natural state of man, the way in which humanity would organize itself free of government. This could not be further from the truth. Capitalism is a specific economic system created by the government that cannot exist without it. Capitalism requires private property which doesn’t exist without the state.
Where “ancaps” get confused here is they think private property and public property are the only two forms of property, which again isn’t true. There are other kinds, notably what I call “natural property” and “unclaimed property.” Natural property seems similar to private property, but is different yet. Private property is property an individual or group of individuals have a monopoly on, morally and legally. The legitimacy of property is verified from a central power, without this you have what I call “natural property” – property defined merely by current possession. In other words, “natural property” is not legally protected and will only be possessed until it is taken. Without these legal protections and “rights,” modern capitalism cannot exist.
Trade would exist to a degree without the state, being that it is necessary for the survival of humanity (everyone can’t realistically be the jack of all trades), but labor certainly wouldn’t be organized in exactly the same ways. The proof is in the pudding, too. Before capitalism was invented, we never saw a society like modern Western and Asians ones. Trade existed, and so did cooperation. Without the state to enforce a specific economic system, people organize themselves in the ways they see fit. Being that humans aren’t perfect, this self organization can lead to problems (just as centrally planned organization can).
Under anarchy we cannot expect groups of people to form mass societies like they have under the state with countries, but rather smaller communities. If you want to see an example of anarchy in action, look at the way the modern Amish and colonists of America’s past operate/operated. While they certainly do have markets and property, they organize their resources in a variety of ways, none of which are the same as the way resources are organized under formal neo-liberal capitalism. If you want to argue the merits of these two systems than we could do so all day, but don’t delude yourself or anyone else into believing that capitalism would exist in it’s current or past forms without the state.
Now, earlier I mentioned that “anarcho-communists” have a more legitimate right to attach “communist” to the anarchy part of their ideology. The reason I say this is that communists have conceived ways in which they will enforce their economic system onto everyone even without the state. Most “ancoms” are only eventual “ancoms,” they have a whole theory about how they will seize control of governments and implement socialism before eventually dissolving the government completely reaching “communist utopia.” Although their theory is about as wrong as possible, I still say they have some legitimacy in using the term in that they’re in favor of using violence to implement their ideas, which means they have a means to implement their ideas, something “ancaps” don’t have. Even after the state is abolished they have no problem going around and killing anyone who doesn’t like the current system. At the end of the day I imagine that the result of both systems would normalize to being the same, but at least “ancom” theory is implementable on the short term, while “anarcho-capitalism” is a non-starter entirely.
Morality and the Non-Aggression Principle
Perhaps the argument most used by “ancaps” is the “non-aggression principle.” It is a moral argument that suggests endorsing the initiation of force is morally wrong. While the argument does seem to be enticing and can fool many who lack critical thinking ability, the emperor has no clothes. The “NAP”, is nothing but a linguistic trick. Everyone, even if at a subconscious level only, thinks aggression is wrong, at least at a certain point. The problem here is that no universal definition of aggression exists. Some would say the killing someone who raped your sister is aggression, while others would say it was perfectly just. Some would say flying a drone into one’s house and taking pictures of someone in the shower naked and then releasing them to the public is aggression, while others would say it doesn’t violate the “NAP.”
Even within “ancap” communities debates like these still rage on. “Ancaps” usually define aggression as any use of force that isn’t directly in defense of yourself or someone else. Some would argue yet that you can only morally defend yourself. The debate on this topic is endless, and seems to invalidate the “NAP” to begin with. However, we can take it one step further: the “NAP” only applies to the state initiation of force. Even if today someone did a 100 percent factual and accurate cost-benefit analysis of violence under states and violence without states, and concluded that the state detracts from net violence, most “ancaps” would remain completely unchanged. “Ancaps” are very similar to “cuckservatives” in this way, they don’t care if they actually get desirable results, but rather only if their subjective morality is upheld.
Morality truly only derives from two places, the first being what is good for society, and the second being what your God says. The first is an argument put forth by the neoreactionary movement, with the second being an obvious truth. For the first, we argue that the goal of humanity should be to create more successful and cooperative societies. Whatever results in cooperation and success then, is ultimately what should be done. Even when “ancaps” admit that the state is better at some things than the market, they argue that it is invalid because they cannot support a system based on aggression. Things better handled by the state include but are not limited to the construction of roads, the courts, eugenics programs, national defense, and the punishment of degeneracy.
Once you move past the highly subjective and dishonest “NAP,” you cannot argue against the effectiveness of the state in certain situations. The second moral argument I put forward is that whatever a God/Gods say is morally just is. The reason that this is true is simple: Gods are by definition all knowing omniscient beings, so whatever they say would in fact be correct. This of courses changes your morals based on what God you profess to believe in, if one at all. The question that will invariably rise from this is whether it is just to enforce a moral code derived from God onto others who do not share your belief in God. I say yes, but this is a subject far too complex for the purpose of this article.
The Failings of Polycentric Law
If you spend anytime at all in anarchist circles, you’ll notice many refrains regarding polycentric law. “Ancaps” like to parrot the phrase “no rulers, not no rules” but when one critically examines their ideology it appears that it is not much more than a wishful dream. Law is, and always has been one of the primary benefits of the state. Unified law systems have provided stability, as well the ensurance of property rights to the nation. “Ancaps” claim to be against monopolized industries, which they define as the exclusive right to something in a certain geographic area. They do this, without realizing how much of a contradiction that is to polycentric law.
While it is true that monopolies cannot be created in the market through voluntary trade for an extended period of time, it is also true that monopolies can be created through sheer brute force. Polycentric law falls apart because the idea of competing courts imply that under anarchy everyone would work together peacefully, which is not the case. While polycentric law would work fine in some places, in others it would be a complete disaster where whomever had the most resources creates a type of kingdom, where he can enforce any laws he wants onto the less resourced people.
I of course have no problem with monopolized law, I think it is necessary. Monopoly through polycentric law is not viable however, and would be far less stable and fair than state monopolized law. I would further say that if monopolized law exists, it is no longer anarchy, but rather that area controlled by the monopolized law system is now a type of state. The idea of anarchy is self defeating, the way that “states” came about in the first place was that someone acquired enough resources to rule over everyone else.
The Eugenics of the Market and the Degeneracy of Social Liberalism
One of the often unspoken appeals of the free market is that it provides a certain level of eugenic culling and incentive for proper action. This is a fairly obvious thing, as without a safety net those who cannot acquire capital whether through their own labor or the labor of others will not survive. However, one fatal mistake most modern libertarians make is applying the rules of the market to social institutions. Indeed it is true that the state props up degeneracy and without it degeneracy could not thrive like it has today. Modernity, our current social climate (that started around the time the liberation of women did) could not exist without the welfare state propping up destructive actors.
However, what libertarians don’t understand is that while the market is eugenic in nature, it isn’t the most eugenic system possible. The state currently uses its power in a dysgenic manor, but it is indeed possible to use state power in a eugenic manor. The market in this way can be seen as a middle ground between dysgenic state power and eugenic state power, with the latter being the most optimal. As I argued earlier, on a moral level, besides what is derived from your Gods, what is best for society, meaning what is best for the tribe, should reign supreme. Doing whatever is necessary to secure the existence and genetic advancement of your people is absolutely moral. If you base morality on anything expect this, then that means by definition you care less about yourself than you care about others.
As we see all around the globe, government action can better a people. Health regulations in Japan, including ones to make obesity a crime, have made it the healthiest nation in history. Obviously Japan doesn’t have everything correct, their birth rates have plummeted to unspeakably low levels. This isn’t a particularly hard issue to fix though, even minor positive eugenic programs like tax breaks for families and cultural shifts can have massive impacts. If the state has any role, it certainly is to secure the safety and existence of its people. In its proper role, the state acts merely as a supplement to an already connected people.
It is hard to keep the state in its proper role, but remember when we talk ideology we’re talking the optimal solution, not a short term answer to ethnic conflict like anarchists purpose. We certainly have learned that democracy, especially when women are enfranchised, cannot work even with social cohesion and connection. The reason for this is simple; democracy drags policy down to the level of the lowest common denominator and allows people to use primal biological imperatives to influence everyone else. Here I have made my brief case against anarchism and social liberalism, but the debate still remains what system should replace what we have now.