Will Moyer, and “Adding To” Libertarianism…

It has become popular as of late to try to “add to” libertarianism. People tell us “the State isn’t the only oppression in the world, you know” and those of us who have met some other adversity in life, may find this appealing. Since that’s pretty much everyone, there’s an increasingly popular idea, that by “adding to” libertarianism, we can improve it, and make it more popular. That sounds great to many libertarians who have been frustrated with the pace of progress, watching in horror as the State expands ever more rapidly. By their thinking, if we expand on libertarianism, and make it more popular, we can advance liberty and defeat, or at least reduce, the State.

Unfortunately, this is illusory, and the people falling for it are being lured into a devious and intentional plot to do the exact opposite.

Will Moyer Wants To "Add To" Libertarianism

Will Moyer Wants To “Add To” Libertarianism

Thankfully, every once in awhile, one of these people betrays the cause and exposes what they’re actually up to. Such was the case as I stumbled across an article by Will Moyer titled “The Limits of Libertarianism“. Moyer, to his credit, starts off with the common courtesy of having the honesty to admit he’s not a libertarian. This is an act of decency I wish more of his antipropertarian friends would engage in, because it helps further more honest discussion.

Though Moyer disagrees with it, he acknowledges that libertarianism is the non aggression principle, and that it answers all questions with property rights. For libertarians, this is a great idea. It’s rational, logical, and evidence based. It avoids violence. It’s the whole entire point of libertarianism. Decades, if not centuries of intellectual thought, economic and historical study, writing, video, and audio production have been poured into spreading this wisdom.

For Moyer though, this is a problem. It’s such a huge problem, that he abandoned libertarianism years ago, and now openly calls himself a leftist. His goal is not a society based on property rights, but as he puts it, a society based on “human flourishing”. How humanitarian of him… To many people, this sounds very appealing. I mean, what sort of monster opposes “human flourishing”? Certainly only the worst enemies of humanity could reject such a noble goal. Let’s forget this whole property rights madness and support “human flourishing” instead!

My goal isn’t a society based on property rights. My goal is human flourishing. I want an ethical, free, and humane planet. A world where humans take care of each other and other living creatures. I want a world of flattened hierarchies, including the non-violent ones. A world with human dignity. That may be a future where property rights – as we think of them today – don’t exist. It may be a post-scarcity world full of abundance. It may be a world where our familiar social structures – both macro and micro – are vastly different. It’s up to us to build it.

The best part is, Moyer says we don’t even have to abandon our beliefs! We just have to “add to” them.

Well, except for the whole property rights thing. That’s sort of antiquated, after all. If we just abandon property, and instead support “human flourishing” by “adding to” libertarianism, a few wonderful concepts like feminism, egalitarianism, and “anti-racism”, we can live in a “post scarcity” world where property rights don’t exist.

To many of you, the problem here is obvious. For the rest of you, I’ll spell it out. Despite some eloquent writing, and creative wordsmithing, what Moyer has here described is the complete and total destruction of libertarianism, not its improvement. Libertarianism is the non aggression principle, it answers all questions with property rights, and to remove property rights from the equation is to eliminate libertarianism itself. Moyer claims to have been a libertarian for over a decade, he understands what libertarianism is, and from his exceptional writing skills we can deduce that he is not stupid. This being the case, the only conclusion one can reach is that he’s doing this on purpose.

Those of us who spent some time studying the US Constitution, should easily recognize Moyer’s assault on language as one of the most powerful weapons tyrants have ever laid their blood soaked hands on. Of the constitution we are taught that it guarantees “freedom of speech” which now means “freedom to support homosexuality and oppose racism”, in other words, unpopular speech is punished. We are taught that it promises “the right to keep and bear arms” which has now been replaced with a “National Guard” and sweeping gun control laws that turn law abiding citizens into felons with the stroke of a pen. We are taught that it secures the right to be “free from unreasonable search and seizure” which now means having all of your communications monitored by the federal government and checkpoints on the highways. No matter how obvious the contradictions, the people in power, or those seeking power, will never admit that they are violating the constitution. Far from it, they tell us how much they admire they constitution, how it reflects their core values, and how vigorously they will fight to protect it if we only grant them the power to do so. Needless to say, the result has been the same for 225 years, an ever expanding central government, which by the minute drifts ever further from the constitution pitched to the citizenry in the Federalist Papers.

Having watched this take place for my entire life in State politics, on both sides but especially on the left, it comes as no surprise to me that as libertarian ideas become more popular, leftists seek to redefine them, in an effort to destroy them. In identical fashion to how the left’s statist counterparts tell us that the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” ever shifting with the whims of popular opinion, the antipropertarian anarchists tell us we must “evolve” beyond property rights. As if doing away with property rights is some kind of new idea that hasn’t already resulted in the most murder and mayhem and economic catastrophe in recorded history, they pretend this barbarism is actually forward thinking, and more advanced than the most sound economic analyses to date.

It is important for libertarians to understand what is happening here, because the threat that Moyer’s less honest antipropertarian cohorts pose to libertarianism is rivaled only by the State itself. Will Moyer is actually quite common in his beliefs, what sets him apart is that he is honest about his antipropertarianism. This shift towards left/liberal views on what are commonly perceived to be “social issues” in libertarian circles, pushed by the likes of Jeffrey Tucker, Students for Liberty, Reason Magazine, the Foundation for Economic Education, it’s all part of the same scam, and it’s not about bringing the left to liberty, it’s about moving liberty to the left.

The perpetual effort to “add to” libertarianism, is nothing short of an attempt to destroy it by weakening the foundation of property rights. If libertarianism is “anti-racist”, first of all, that’s just slang for anti-white, but more to the point, it means libertarianism prosecutes thought crime, an invasion into a man’s own mind. If libertarianism opposes a baker’s right to refuse service to gay marriages, then libertarianism opposes the the baker’s right to do as he sees fit with his bakery. If libertarianism opposes “privilege” then libertarianism opposes wealth. If libertarianism opposes defensive violence, then libertarianism opposes defense of property. Moyer takes it further than all of that, closing with “Widen the circle of your radicalism until it encompasses all of society.”. Which is to say, all things are the business of all people, that your “radicalism” is to invade on everyone, and everything. Once you jump on board with any of this, you are opposing property rights, and whether they want to admit it or not, the next stop, is aggression.

 

Cathy Reisenwitz Supports Moyer's Antipropertarian Agenda

Cathy Reisenwitz Supports Moyer’s Antipropertarian Agenda

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

  • SamuelAdams1776

    Good article except for the part about the constitution being pitched to the citizens. The constitution was strong armed on the people and was formed in secret. The constitution was illegally put in the place of the Articles because the A.O.C stated that for an amendment to take place all 13 colonies should be for it and that wasn’t the case with Rhode Island. Rhode Island had an embargo placed on it for not excepting it

  • RobertRoddis

    The NAP is essential because murder, rape, pillage, war and genocide are the problems that have always afflicted mankind. With the NAP in place, these “thick” libertarians types can market their very own special brand of private neighborhood with all the compassion necessary for a beautiful life as they define it. What exactly do those people have with that vision of libertarianism?

  • illuminarch

    Saying: “Libertarianism’s narrow views do a disservice to yourself and the world” is a bit like saying “Electrical engineering’s narrow views do a disservice to yourself and the world.” After all, what does electrical engineering have to say about a mother’s love, or what makes good literature? It doesn’t even answer “Why are we here?” or tell us how to make a good pot roast! Worthless!

    The applicability of libertarianism is a bit wider than electrical engineering, perhaps, but it is still limited in scope. It is a political philosophy and a component of a moral and ethical worldview. Anyone who wants to expand that, or anything else, to be some sort of all-encompassing, universal theory of everything is a simpleton or a huckster. Or perhaps a neo-Bolshevist infiltrator.

  • Right

    Cantwell, your last two articles reek of tremendous
    cognitive dissonance. In the first, you poke holes in your own philosophy with
    knowledge obtained from an author you claim in your second article was being
    intellectually dishonest. But the reality is we can poke holes in
    anarchocapitalism all day long. People en masse succinctly reject the notion
    that they should turn over control of their lives to insurance companies, paid
    militias, toll roads every hundred yards, and a world of artificial scarcity
    where everything is own, chaos reigns, and it is every man for himself.
    Introspect further and you’ll soon be turning your back on this nonsense
    altogether. Come on over to the warm, clear, inviting waters of statism.

    • Matthew Reece

      Not sure if troll or just stupid…

  • FreeUsAll

    Great article. I do believe that words have nearly lost their meaning, in large part due to the efforts of a number of people, regardless of intentions. I would be interested in hearing from Wendy McElroy on the matter, as I believe it was her that basically stated that words have power and also seemed keen on using that to change “things” around for anarchism. Either way, I woke up to find libertarianism and now I’m watching in abject horror as it is hijacked. There is very little in which to believe anymore.

  • Bill Bochynski

    Collectivism. That’s all Will Moyer and Cathy Reisenwitz are espousing; old wine in a new bottle.

    We look at the world as it is and say how could it be made better? (“Better” being defined as morality and decentralization.)

    They look at the world as how they want it and say how can we get there? (“Lions and lambs laying together.”)

    The problem is, one group (us) takes into account praxeology (human action) and the Fall of Man (that Man is inherently evil) while the other group (Will, Cathy, “Right”) ignore these basic facts.

    When tigers live off of oranges, perhaps Will and Cathy and “Right” can find their bliss, but, right now, they are children ignoring the facts.

    Is it willful ignorance Will and Cathy and “Right” suffer from or something far worse?