Why Libertarians Are Hopeless

I’ve come to some revelations as of late which have radically altered my worldview. It has been as upsetting as it has been exciting. For several years I have expressed my frustrations against certain elements of the libertarian movement which might most recognizably be categorized as leftist. I am far from the first to see their presence as a disaster and even dangerous. This is a very old problem, and it gets worse by the day. I have recently become convinced (and I welcome your efforts to convince me otherwise) that this is a natural and inescapable biological phenomenon, which dooms our efforts in man’s present evolutionary state.

Why Libertarians Are Hopeless

Why Libertarians Are Hopeless

Before explaining why I believe this to be the case, I should note that I speak here of libertarians, not of libertarianism. The philosophy and economics brought to us by great minds like Murray Rothbard and Hans Hermann Hoppe is as sound as it ever was. If people began behaving rationally, tomorrow we would live in a world where the word libertarian was synonymous with the word human. In this philosophical sense, I am still very much a libertarian. This is how the world ought to work. In a more strategic sense, I cannot make the same claim. I am coming to grips with the reality that this is not in fact how the world does work, and that this is likely to remain the case until long after everyone alive at the time of this writing is dead.

Libertarians, to our credit, have worked very hard to spread our ideas by way of reasoned logical arguments. Frantically banging away on keyboards, in forums, blog posts, and social media, we have rushed to debunk the fallacies of State propagandists and economic illiterates the world over. The entire time, we are met with jibberish rebuttals, silence, and threats of force instead of reasoned responses, and the entire time we scratch our heads in bewilderment as to why our fellow human beings, and even our purported fellow libertarians, appear impervious to reason.

We have worked to better educate ourselves and refine our arguments, convinced that in accordance with our philosophy of personal responsibility, this must be a failing on our part. Rather than blame others for their irrationality, we blame our lack of capacity for convincing others, and work to better ourselves. Some of us spend many years attempting to correct our own failings, and as we do, things get continually worse in perpetuity.

In so doing, we have largely overlooked the crux of the issue. We have attempted to understand the realities of the universe and make better libertarian arguments, without trying to understand the flaw in our fellow man which prevents him from understanding reason. It is that inquiry which has led me to my startling conclusion, that libertarians are hopeless.

If libertarians are interested in reason, logic, and evidence, then they should start processing the evidence that reason and logic have nearly zero relation to modern social and political discourse. When one refuses to process a reasoned argument, giving them more reason is a senseless exercise in futility. Hence the great frustration of so many libertarians who might study themselves into the grave, never understanding why they have not saved mankind from his own irrationality.

But the libertarian too, exercises a great deal of irrationality in doing so. It is as if he were trying to teach a dog to speak Japanese, and then condemning himself for a lack of teaching skills, when the creature simply lacked the biological capacity to learn such a skill.

The startling reality of the human social condition, is that freedom, reason, and logic have nothing to do with our social and political affairs. The evidence, is that these affairs are directed by power. Libertarians are understandably uncomfortable with exercises of power which involve the initiation of force. They may even rightly claim a moral high ground by rejecting such power as having any moral legitimacy. But when power comes to be exercised against the libertarian, his argumentation ethics will do nothing to stop it. Only by wielding power of his own, can he hope to stop it.

This involves the use of violence. While libertarianism would embrace the use of violence in self defense, libertarians have rejected it in all but the most limited of circumstances. Meanwhile his rivals have accepted use of initiatory violence on a scale so vast it is scarcely discernible who is actually wielding force. We would commonly think of it as quite unjust to use interpersonal violence against our political enemies, even as those enemies are waving a metaphorical gun around in their attempts to wield the violent force of the State against us. The libertarian attempts to reason with people who threaten him with violence, he loses nearly 100% of the time, and then acts confused as to why. The answer is obvious, power.

The motivations for the exercise of that power, and the irrational nature of its use, well, that is a whole other level of frightening.

Old Dogs, New Tricks

If you haven’t heard it, you owe it to yourself to listen to episode 429 of the Tom Woods show. In that episode, Tom interviews Jonathan Haidt, author of “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided over Politics and Religion“. A revelation made in the course of that discussion was a groundbreaking discovery for me. The analogy made is that of “the elephant and the rider” in which one’s reasoned logical thought process is a human being, riding an elephant which consists of more primitive survival instincts and emotions. To make a long story short, that rider can desire the elephant to go straight all he wants, but if the elephant decides to turn right or left, the human rider has little practical say in the matter. The elephant is stronger than the human rider. The mind is divided, like a rider on an elephant, and the rider’s job is to serve the elephant, not vice versa. When human beings evolved the capacity for language and reasoning at some point in the last million years, the brain did not rewire itself to hand over the reins to a new and inexperienced charioteer. Rather, the rider (language-based reasoning) evolved because it did something useful for the elephant.

This is why people behave like animals. Because that’s exactly what they are. They are animals who happen to have various levels of language and reasoning skills evolved within them, but the animal comes first. We are evolved as systems on top of systems. One analogy to this is that you have three brains.

There’s your reptile brain. This handles just the basics: hunger, temperature control, fight-or-flight fear responses, defending territory, keeping safe — that kind of thing. We’re not getting far without basic biological functions of breathing, temperature regulation, food, water, and avoidance of predators and other perils. As much as we might like to think of ourselves as quite rational, this survival center will win nearly 100% of the time if made to compete with other brain processes. This is not something to complain about either, because absent our survival instincts, we can’t have this conversation because we’re all dead.

As we evolve further into social animals with group centric or “pack” instincts, we develop what some would describe as the dog brain. The limbic system, or emotional center serves a very important part of our lives, and comes well before our higher reasoning ever comes into play. We develop emotional attachments to our families, friends, and other group members. We act in defense of one another. We share with one another. We compete with other groups, as a group, and we are infinitely more competitive as a result.

As we evolve even further into thinking creatures, we develop what some would describe as our human brain, or the cortex. With this we can do things that horses and cows cannot, like complex social interactions and advance planning (such as planning an attack on a neighboring troop). In humans the cortex has grown to a huge size, somehow in association with our development of language.

With each evolution, the pre-existing systems are not rewired or redesigned. They are systems on top of systems. The survival center, or reptilian brain comes first. The emotional center, or dog brain comes second. And the reasoning center, or human brain comes last. The emotional center serves the survival instinct, and the reasoning center serves the first two. This makes perfect sense, because you can’t serve your group if you don’t survive yourself, and language is almost useless if you have nobody to talk to.

When one attempts to reason, not taking all these things into account, he may well come up with flawlessly logical arguments, but these have all the effect of throwing rocks at a tank when he attempts to communicate them to others. The emotional and survival centers of the brain are more powerful than the reasoning center, and attempts to bypass this are largely futile.

As an example of the “systems on top of systems” concept. Most animals do not have independent finger movement. Human beings do, but this is a latter developed system. When you attempt to move your fingers independently, your brain is actually telling your entire hand to move, but a more advanced portion of the brain is telling the seemingly uninstructed fingers to remain still, and there is a great deal of unconscious muscle coordination at work. The part of your brain that moves all fingers as one is still there, and is actually still dominant as can be demonstrated by certain hand exercises, but your ability to flip someone off is a later development facilitated by a higher system.

Competing Human Survival Strategies

Something that has really rocked my understanding of politics and social interactions is a concept known as r/K selection theory. While far from flawless and in some degree of contention, it is at worst a great analogy, and at best a rock solid explanation of modern political discourse.

For a brief overview of the concept, Stefan Molyneux has a playlist discussing the phenomenon on YouTube. For a more in depth look at the subject, check out “The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics” by Anonymous Conservative.

To briefly summarize for the uninitiated, man is the undisputed ruling species of this planet because of his ability to adapt to changing circumstances. Varied conditions involving climate, resource scarcity, disease, predators, and even intraspecies warfare have done little to slow our advancement. Today we live in a world where, for all intents and purposes, we are our only enemy. Man fears no predator, save for other men.

In nature, there are two primary reproductive strategies, here represented by the mathematical symbols of r and K. The r strategy favors rapid reproduction, early sexualization, low investment parenting, to create as many offspring as possible in response to high resource availability, and random predation. The K strategy favors less reproduction, later sexualization, and high investment parenting, to create offspring more capable of adapting to changing conditions of resource scarcity, to prey and to fight off other predators.

An example of r-strategists would be rabbits. Rabbits in a field of grass will almost never run short of resources. Short of some catastrophic change in conditions, rabbits are not prone to starvation. Their primary survival concern is owls and other predators which may swoop down and pick them off one by one in a manner which is to them, quite random. They cannot fight their predators, and so concerning themselves with doing so is quite senseless. They cannot control the availability of resources, and so concerning themselves with resource limitations is quite senseless. It provides no evolutionary advantage. The only thing for the rabbit to concern himself with is creating more offspring as to pass on his DNA, and running from danger whenever he does recognize it. They are non-monogamous, invest little into the offspring they produce, have little to no in-group preference, and perceive no intraspecies threat.

An example of K-strategists would be wolves. Wolves do not feed on endless fields of grass, they feed on animals which do. To do this, they must hunt, and starvation is a very real threat as a result. They need not only be faster and stronger than their prey, but also faster and stronger than their competitor wolves. As such, they breed more selectively, produce fewer offspring, and invest a great deal into making sure those offspring are fit for survival. Since they have to compete for resources with other wolves, they perceive intraspecies threats and will fight other wolves for territory and resources. To improve their competitive advantage, they do so as a group (pack) and have a high ingroup preference, imposing social norms to maintain group cohesion.

The analogy made by Anonymous Conservative is that leftists evolved from an r-strategy, and rightists from the K-strategy. It is in some ways a spectrum of behaviors, in which many will find themselves adapting some traits from one and some traits from another, but if one were to zoom out far enough, two distinct groups emerge.

Liberals, like rabbits, have little concern for the concept of private property. What libertarians and conservatives view as an out of control welfare state is in fact quite moderate to them. Even socialism or communism don’t fully represent the liberal worldview. On the extreme, we’ll see concepts like the “Venus Project” and other “post scarcity” movements. This is an attempt to create the rabbit like existence they are bred for, a field of endless clover upon which to feed. They are prone to promiscuity, and favor early childhood sexual education, because to their simple biological drives, sex is the whole entire point. They are irrationally averse to warfare and other forms of competition, because there is little point in fighting over a particular piece of dirt when there is endless grass upon which to feed. Trying to claim territory or even a mate for oneself is bizarre to the leftist, and so violence in defense thereof is nothing short of mental illness.

Rightists, like wolves, will fight, kill, and die to defend property because scarcity is in the genes. Failure to defend property is a death sentence, and so from a Darwinian perspective one is no better off letting his property be taken than he is dying in defense of the property. That competitive instinct means offspring have to be fit for competition, and leaving bastard children all over the place with no male role model is as much to his Darwinian advantage as is masturbation. He has to compete, and can compete more effectively as a group, so social norms are imposed on the group for the betterment of group cohesion, and among those social norms will be sexual ones. Delaying sexualization of offspring so that they choose mates in a time of prime fitness, maintaining monogamous relationships to limit ingroup conflict and raise fitter offspring, honoring the outcomes of ingroup competitions, and the like are second nature to the K-selected wolf-like rightist.

It should come as no surprise that wolves and rabbits living in the same habitat will come into a great deal of conflict. When human beings take on traits and survival instincts which resembles such creatures, we should be no more surprised that these groups of human beings also come into conflict. Were it not for our aversion to cannibalism, the rightist would quickly make a meal of the leftist, but a market economy has a similar if seemingly less gruesome effect.

The competitive rightist quickly finds himself atop the food chain in a competitive market economy. He is the entrepreneur, the leader, the captain of industry. He calculates his actions, delays gratification, and impacts his environment in ways the leftist can scarcely begin to comprehend. The leftist, as evidenced by his perpetual demands for a higher minimum wage, is reduced to begging for scraps in exchange for favors. The rightist profits from the leftist’s incapacity to compete with him, as the leftist is compelled to servitude.

Introduce democracy, and things get interesting. The leftist is geared toward greater numbers, and is averse to any other type of competition. A contest of majority vote is about the only contest he can win against his conservative competitor. So while the rightist may have established governments for the purpose of facilitating fair competition and ingroup defense, democracy has subverted that intention in favor of the leftist. By his superior numbers, the leftist lives at the expense of the rightist as would a parasite. As a result, we live in a world where the rabbits rule and feed upon the wolves, and the insanity of that unnatural order is being displayed by increasingly catastrophic outcomes.

The wolves can, and may, upend that system at any time through force. The superior numbers of the rabbits mean little as the wolves’ teeth shred the flesh and crush the bones of rodents. The wolves quite happily pay taxes to the State while under the impression they are simply benefiting their group, but as they become aware they are being preyed upon by an outgroup force, they will defend themselves against the threat, much to the detriment of the rodent class.

It is a biological phenomenon of evolutionary psychology, not some top down scam imposed on us by governments as so many libertarian seem to think.

The Libertarian Flaw

While this interpretation is flawed from an informed libertarian perspective, a common theme amongst self described libertarians is that the right wants to control our social behaviors, and the left wants to control our economic behaviors. Understandably this seems like utter nonsense to libertarians, who would seek to be free of either set of controls. This is flawed for a number of reasons.

Firstly, to draw a separation between social and economic behaviors is farcical. How we choose to interact with one another, including how we breed, are economic behaviors. Levels of ingroup preferences, how many offspring one produces, how those offspring are raised, and other factors people like to think of as quite separate from stock markets and interest rates, are in fact quite closely tied together. A preference to “buy American” as opposed to saving a few bucks by importing something from China for example, has a profound impact on all manner of economic indicators. A preference for the instant gratification of drug use, over the delayed gratification of saving, has obvious economic impacts. The notion that how many human beings a group produces, or how those individuals are raised to behave, could possibly be without impact on the economy, is simply too stupid for the thinking man to take seriously.

Additionally, while leftists would like to pretend they are the less judgemental political order, we can see in ever increasing fashion that this is not the case. Their attempts to thought police the populace, from insane cries of racism and misogyny and homophobia, to demands that standards be lowered and subsidies increased for the sake of greater inclusion, express a profound imposition of social norms on the members of the society. Clearly, the leftist rhetoric of free speech, academic freedom, and other civil libertarian views was merely an appeal to the emotions of the previously right leaning social order, so that they might gain traction for their own value system in the society.

Both groups are simply trying to advance their particular brand of social norms as to make their particular breeding strategies dominant. They do so because this is to their Darwinian advantage, be they conscious of it or not.

Social behaviors are economic, and economic behaviors are social. So this commonly misinterpreted libertarian view of the left/right paradigm is profoundly flawed. Without viewing it through a biological lense, one cannot understand the nature of modern political discourse. The libertarian can reason until he is blue in the face, but the wolves and rabbits care not. The libertarian thinks himself quite above all of this, and in a sense he might be. Unfortunately for him, the social nature of man prohibits his accomplishment of his political goals.

Suppose a libertarian finds a particularly open minded rightist, and convinces him that market competition is best served by the abolition of State intervention in the economy. Suppose he finds a leftist, and convinces her that only by the abolition of the State can her sexual liberation finally come to fruition. What do each of them do come election time, when the rest of the wolves and rabbits head off to the polls to elect rulers to impose each of their wills upon the other?

As Lysander Spooner put it;

In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self- preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defense offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.

 

The wolves and the rabbits will compete for control of the State apparatus no matter what philosophical enlightenment the libertarian minority manages to obtain. Whatever rabbits and wolves he recruits to his side will be few in number since their biological drivers outweigh their logical thought processes, and even their logical thought processes see the problem of allowing the other group to gain control of the State apparatus. Each seek to advance the interests of their species at the expense of the other, and they will be in eternal competition until one of two things happen.

1. The other side is exterminated.

2. The State apparatus is no longer an option.

One of these outcomes is more likely than the other, much to the dismay of the libertarian.

Why Libertarians Are Corrupted By The Left

I should again explain, I am discussing libertarians, not libertarianism. The following critique would rightly be met with complaints by well read Rothbardians as containing a great many falsehoods. I have made these complaints repeatedly myself.

In their efforts to grow their numbers, and in the face of perpetual frustrations in getting wolves and rabbits to shrug off their evolutionary psychology, libertarian groups have resorted to recruiting non-libertarians into their ranks. This presumably was perceived as a competitive advantage in a political system which favors numbers over reasoned arguments or factual correctness.

In the course of so doing, it is my perception that leftists are particularly more prone to swing toward libertarian social circles than rightists, due primarily to a lack of ingroup preference. It is not that they become libertarians or suddenly shrug off their rodent like evolutionary psychology. They are simply more prone to novelty seeking ,and lack any group loyalty or attachment to any particular idea. They are still rodents, but they realize they can have a higher social status in this smaller group than in their larger openly left wing group. A left libertarian blogger may become the envy of his left libertarian peers, but would accomplish absolutely nothing when competing against the vast expanse of mainstream liberal media.

The rightist on the other hand is less prone to novelty seeking, has a higher ingroup preference, and is more averse to radical changes in the existing social and economic order. Additionally, he is aware that his inferior numbers make his absence in a democratic contest far more consequential than that of the leftist. So he is far more averse to radically altering his thinking, his social circles, or his political activity to favor a more libertarian order.

Thus, while libertarianism as a well thought out philosophy would be more appealing to the rightist than the leftist, the leftist gains undue influence in the libertarian social and political scene. That leftist influence dilutes the body of thought as left tainted media is produced and distracts from the writings of the Rothbards and Hoppes of the world. They focus on equality and diversity, which are not libertarian goals in the slightest. They will favor recruiting women and non-whites into libertarian scenes, even as these demographics tend to work against libertarian goals. More leftists are attracted to the left tainted libertarian media, and so more leftists are introduced into the social and political circles and thus the cycle perpetuates itself to a point where economics are barely even part of the discussion, and instead it descends into senseless race baiting, feminism, and dare I incur the ire of my regular readers by saying it, irrational hatred of military and law enforcement.

Why Leftist Influence Makes Libertarian Failure Certain

I mentioned earlier that rabbits and wolves would compete for control of the State apparatus until either one side was exterminated, or the State apparatus was made no longer available. Libertarians would clearly be averse to half the population meeting a violent demise, and far prefer the State apparatus be made unavailable. Unfortunately left wing influences on libertarians make the former inevitable, and the latter impossible.

While leftists are quite fond of State violence and have even been known to violently attack political opponents during otherwise peaceful demonstrations, they are, at least rhetorically, pacifists at heart. Rabbits do not fight wolves, they scurry into holes in the ground fearing for their survival as their weak little hearts beat rapidly.

Simply put, the only way to bring about the abolition of the State apparatus is a violent overthrow of said apparatus, followed in short order by a culture of resistance preventing the establishment of such an institution in the future. The passive nature of the rodent class which occupies the libertarian space at present forbids such violence, and certainly lacks both the mental and physical capacity to take on the wolf in so much as a single non-democratic contest, much less a violent and protracted one.

A left infiltrated libertarian movement will be incapable of battling a violent State, because its members will be pacifistic and feminine. Were its numbers to grow so miraculously as to facilitate this impossible phenomenon, the rodent class would simply occupy the seats of power in a French Revolution style egalitarian disaster.

Enter The Neoreactionaries

The wolves who found libertarianism attractive, met with the nonsensical leftist dogma of the rodents, and abandoned libertarian strategies in view of this inevitable failure. Other wolves simply avoided it from the gate. Between them both, they formed another unit which became increasingly wolflike with time.

Labeled by some as misogynists, racists, homophobes, and right wing extremists, they are in reality the inevitable outcome of the path society has taken. The awakening, or as some have called it “dark enlightenment” that democracy will no longer serve the interests of the wolf, and that the wolf is more fit to rule, vote counts be damned.

They are the embodiment of a quote commonly misattributed to Alexander Tytler;

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

The time for a dictator and monarch is upon us, and however much this may displease the libertarian matters not. His goals were sabotaged by his acceptance of the rodent, and the time of the wolf has arrived. I fear the best we can hope for is that our ruler be benevolent, and that under his reign a better humanity emerges.

But with history as my guide, I won’t be holding my breath for such an outcome.

 

 

This effort is made possible by donors like you. You can also help by shopping through my Amazon affiliate link. Without that support, this site will cease to exist.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

[mc4wp_form id=”7723″]

  • fracker_monocle

    Welcome to the dark side. I’m kind of starting to wonder how big this “NRx-ancap” sphere is. So far, the only ones I really know of are you, me, and Clark from Popehat. I sure hope there are more out there.

    • Mr. Michael

      I’m there with you guys.

    • Robert Firestone

      Fuck I jumped in as soon as I heard the “hateful rhetoric” podcast. Maybe I was before hand but needed someone to spell it all out.

    • Lao Zoot

      There are a lot of us, and our numbers are growing every day. The Left has been our biggest unwitting ally in this, as they show their true colors and more people turn away in disgust.
      For me, though it had been building for a while, the trigger was the derailment of the police accountability movement by racialists who began to hold up trash like Trayvon, Brown, et al, while supporting riots in their names, thereby alienating all of Middle America, who were finally beginning to listen a bit. After that, I began to open my eyes more and more each day.

  • Jerome Bigge

    Libertarians want “less” government. A government whose laws only exist to prevent people from using force or fraud against people and/or property. Otherwise people are free to make their own decisions for themselves as “self owners”. Free to chose what medicine they wish to take. Free to support themselves using the talents and skills they have without first having to get “permission” from government to do so. A libertarian society would also see to it that organized groups who wish to use the power of the “State” to enrich themselves at the cost of everyone else are prevented from doing so. In a libertarian society there are no drug laws, no prescription laws, no laws that reserve certain activities and services to be provided only by those “authorized” by government to do so. Any credential issuing organization would be “private”, not “state” and people would be free to use the services of the “non-credentialed” if they so wished. What law enforcement that existed would be limited in scope to dealing with those actions that endanger others, or which cause harm to people or steal their property. Additionally people would be free to move, to relocate to other societies should they so wish. However they would not have the right to force themselves upon others or demand goods or services without being willing to pay for them or make arrangements to eventually compensate those who provided them with goods and/or services. Everyone would be free to purchase goods and/or services from anywhere else without restrictions. This is really what a libertarian society is about.

    • Richard Chiu

      It is worth noting that such a society produces a moderate degree of selective pressure to prevent gross stupidity from ever becoming commonplace.

      • Jerome Bigge

        True. “Texting while driving” is a good example. As “dangerous” as drunk driving if not even more so.

  • Dory Desjardins

    Cantwell best neocon 2015

    • paendragon

      Yep! Cantwell is a conservative atheist, but wants that “safe space” he admits exists for the lesser-qualified leftists (and obviously thanks to this rant) Conservatives, too!

      To use his own above words against him: “they realize they can have a higher social status in this smaller group than in their larger openly (right) wing group. A (right) libertarian blogger may become the envy of his (right) libertarian peers, but would accomplish absolutely nothing when competing against the vast expanse of mainstream
      (Conservative) media.”

      Chris enjoys his niche appeal here and doesn’t think he could cut it in the real world against the Mark Levins, Rush Linbaughs or Michael Savages (or even up against the Sean Hannity’s) out there LOL!

      • Rascal

        Kosher conservatism is dying. The true growth would be in the altright coinciding with the Trump phenomenon.

      • Richard Chiu

        You are missing the point.

        Cantwell may not be the healthiest wolf in the pack, but he is a wolf, not a rabbit. Wolves aren’t all talk. They go about ready to settle violent disputes with lethal force. They are willing to talk if it can avert a violent dispute, but they don’t regard talking as an end in itself, the way rabbits can.

        A wolf cannot be all talk.

    • Jeff

      Neither Donald Trump nor Christopher Cantwell are neocons.

  • paendragon

    The r-K model is dead wrong in comparing leftards to rabbits and Conservatives to wolves, simply because the herd or pack and “always attack first!” instinct is strong in leftists, and mostly absent in Conservatives; in fact, it’s almost the exact opposite: feral liberals are pack-hunting predators.

    They are group-rights-make-right worshipping gangsters who always extort money from others by demanding equality of unearned outcome over true equality of opportunity.

    “Liberal” criminals pretty-much automatically create “eternal crises” out of temporary problems with easy, permanent solutions, in order to deflect attention away from their own fear of failure. It’s always far easier to refuse to work while blaming someone else, than it is to try and risk failing.

    Obviously, leftists are masochists: always trying to eliminate their fears by causing the pains they fear! That way, they pretend to “control the inevitable” disasters! And, since their motto is “There’s No Money In solutions!” they tend to fail upwards all the time in their criminal negligence, as they endlessly spin simple, temporary problems with easy, permanent solutions into eternal crises with only temporary, band-aid “therapies” available – i.e: “Please Give Generously – AGAIN!”

    Contrast that with Conservatives, who are only trying to “conserve” the Enlightenment values of individual freedom of thought.

    Here’s another obvious difference between the left and right: remember the old adage about “Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day, but teach him how to fish, and you’ve fed him for a lifetime!”?

    Rightists are all for individual self-reliant responsibility, and so want to teach people how to fish (fend) for them selves, while leftists want their victims to become dependent on them, as slaves are to a master; i.e:

    “Vote for us again, or you won’t get tomorrow’s fish – CAPISCE!?”

    😉

    • Good point.

    • Rascal

      That is why you have to inject race into it, which neither Chris or the other guy does. White liberals absolutely are rabbits. They are aligning with the wolves and rabbits of other races like BLM and Islam because they are too cowardly to pull the trigger themselves. Race has to be part of the conversation.

      Also your mistake is to think that kosher, cornball conservatism represents the “right”. They are no more right than most democrats. He is referring to hardcore fascism, and the altright of which there are many that would love nothing more than to begin the day of the rope.

      Now you can bitch all day about the altirght and fascists but if anyone is left standing from Western Civilization it will be them, not the honey suckling, individualistic Lolbertarians.

      • Christopher Cantwell

        You should read before you comment, you ignorant fuck.

        • Rascal

          I did read it. Before you call me ignorant please tell me where I am wrong? BTW, I am on your side. I am a libertarian at heart but there is no way that libertarianism works in this “Multicultural bullshit.”

          Edit – Is this the same person who said “we have to address race and gender” in your own episode 70? Why the fuck do you think we have to do that or am I dealing with typical libertarian autism I have been warned about?

          • Richard Chiu

            I think he is talking about your incorrect use of “hardcore fascism”, to which Cantwell isn’t referring at all. Like all socialism, fascism is essentially dependent on a society of rabbits, because wolves will not accept being ruled by violence.

            I think that your fault is merely having an incorrect idea of what fascism means rather than failing to read what Cantwell wrote, but it does mean you need to read more even if part of what you lack is found in sources other than Cantwell’s writings.

          • Rascal

            No, I am talking about National Socialists, and nationalists that are outright fascists. Did you listen to his episode 70 podcast with “Fash the Nation”. The interim solution he was referring to is fascism. You all really need to read and listen to your own material

            They exist both here and in Europe and the movement is growing among the wolves of whites who have been completely screwed by the ruling class. They rightfully believe their survival is at stake and are reacting in kind.

          • Richard Chiu

            Okay, you can repeat the words, but are you understanding what they mean? National socialism is still socialism. International socialists accuse everyone else of being national socialists, but that doesn’t make it true. Individualists, those who believe the individual must be held accountable for their personal actions, are never socialists, even if they are patriots. To the individualist, the nation exists as a means to an end. To the fascist, it is the individuals who exist as the means to the end of some national good.

            Using the power of the state to crush the elements of society which have encouraged the growth of the state is…a tricky proposition (I very much doubt it can be done). But it is in no way fascism, especially “hardcore fascism”. The end goal is not to strengthen the power of the state, but to destroy (or at least weaken) it.

          • Rascal

            I am not talking about economic systems, I am talking about group actions. They are fascists, many are former libertarians. Again, did you watch episode 70 of Chris’s show? If you haven’t you may want to educate yourself. They believe the states as it exists does not serve their purpose, and want a more sympathetic state, even if only for temporary survival in order to allow another philosophy like Libertarianism to take hold. It all revolves around race and protecting racial interests through state power because on the streets and not in some 3,000 word blog that is all that matters anymore. It isn’t even about “the state” it is about cultural and racial survival where fascism is only a vehicle to combat the enemies of both Libertariansism and whites.

            These are the wolves Chris is referring to, not some chucklefuck cuckservative

            Seriously, go on twitter right now and tell me there isn’t an openly fascist element that exists. I have news for you, I don’t think it is a bad thing. In fact , in the end I will be forced to side with them because Libertarianism is TOO WEAK TO SURVIVE. That comes from the mouths of libertarians themselves. Libertariansism is not capable of defending the Western way of life at this time and most realize that.

          • Richard Chiu

            Yes, they regard the state as a means to individual ends, rather than regarding the individuals as means to state ends.

            Thus they are the opposite of fascists.

            I do not personally believe it is currently possible to use the mechanisms of the state towards significantly individual ends. I’m more inclined to dismember cops than seriously try and enlist them to shoot criminals (though I do waste a bit of time telling them that, if they were to go after the criminals running their nations, I would reconsider dismembering them). But I do not mistake attempting to use the apparatus of the state to achieve individual ends for using individuals as means to achieve the ends of the state.

            Nor has Cantwell, as far as I know. I admit, his rhetoric is inflammatory and thus imperfectly clear at times (which is, as far as I’m concerned, a strength, because the current situation is not going to get completely resolved by reasoned debate).

            If you understand what fascism really is, and are still a fascist, then I can offer little hope for you. Those of us who regard the individual as the end and judge the nation by whether it serves as a means to that end will eventually have to eliminate you along with the other socialists…to serve our individual ends.

            But I’m guessing that you don’t really grasp that fascism isn’t just “radical anti-leftism”. It is its own distinct political philosophy, one that has been used by leftists as often (or more) than their opponents.

          • Rascal

            Libertarians are not strong, cohesive, or most importantly aggressive enough to “eliminate” people like me is the whole entire point. Libertarians currently have to ask permission to exist and that isn’t changing any time soon. After survival is no longer the primary concern, if the West even does survive, WE as a new group may decide to pursue Libertarianism/ You do realize whites are 95% of the Libertarian movement. Libertarianism is literally a white thing..

            Yes, I get that Fascism is it own distinct philosophy. Jesus dude.

            Liberal whites very soon are going to be the least of your concerns. In your very own Western lands you will be fighting over resources with all manner of the third world. South American Communists, Arab and African Muslims along with god knows what else. Fascism will be used to unite whites against those significant threats as well.

            Now, I like Libertarianism, and freedom and I will play ball, but you all have to drop some of your current delusions.

          • Richard Chiu

            Again, you’re missing the point. Libertarians don’t have to eliminate people like you through strength or aggression.

            They only need to recognize that you exist to enslave them, and thus refuse to help you survive, because it does not serve their individual ends.

            It is the individualist who produces all the goods on which society, and thus the socialists such as yourself, depends for existence. When individualists allow society to collapse because it does not serve them anymore, they will hardly immediately support an even worse society that they only used as a temporary measure. Especially if it fails to even serve their temporary needs, which seems certain in this case.

            Whites won’t be the least of my concerns. Most of the people I’m personally going to kill will probably be white, as it turns out. I’m not going to bother waiting for someone to provide a helicopter for the job, either. I’m done trying to use the mechanisms of the state to accomplish anything.

          • Rascal

            Your whole post assumes that you will never need anyone else, and everyone else needs you. I can be quite independent myself, but I also realize there is a time and a place for mutually beneficial alliances.

            Good luck fighting with whites when that is what the entire libertarian movement is made of. Maybe you can align yourself with the new South American immigrants who vote Marxism at a ratio of 8-2. Great long term strategy.

          • Richard Chiu

            I don’t need anyone else…and anyone that needs me is going to have to find a way to make themselves useful to me without presuming that makes them necessary to me.

            I don’t presume that I’m the only person who doesn’t depend on society for my existence. Society can only exist at all as long as there are people who can provide the means of their own existence with something left over to contribute to society, thus the prior and continued existence of society means that such people exist aside from myself…even if, like myself, more of them are withdrawing their support from society.

            You believe that, just because you cannot survive without society, nobody else can. You are wrong.

            That’s why all we need do to get rid of you is stop supporting you.

          • Rascal

            First let’s make something clear, you are not supporting me. Please, stop with that assumption.

            Second, we MAY have a fundamentally different view of what is going on the world. And that is alright. I believe that everything in Western Civlization including libertarianism is under direct threat of being completely destroyed – and soon. I believe that if Westerners do not band together to mutually protect what we have it will be lost – forever.

            I am simply offering a mutually beneficial pact to man fox holes together to protect what is rightfully ours, and then to most likely go our separate ways when our survival is not in imminent danger.

            If you do not agree that the West is under direct imminent threat fine. If you feel that in 25 years when the Muslim caliphate, or Marxist South American politics has successfully taken over that you will be left alone, fine. I will continue on looking for other independent people like me that realize when you are facing a grave threat that working together is a force multiplier beneficial to everyone’s survival. Some call that “society”, I just call it common sense.

          • Richard Chiu

            See, what you are describing is in no way “hardcore fascism” or even softcore fascism, or fascism at all. Fascism is all about the use of violence within a society to force people it to remain associated together involuntarily.

            That’s why Cantwell got short with you. If you’re going to call libertarians fascists for banding together against external threats, then you should expect to be told to learn what you’re talking about.

            Voluntary association does not depend on fascism. At all. Period.

          • Rascal

            I am not calling Libertarians anything except stubborn. Some even call them autistic. That is why Libertarianism has no national presence. Your lack if willingness to not participate in the grander scheme of things will be it’s downfall.

          • Richard Chiu

            I don’t blame him for lashing out at you because you said he was appealing to “hardcore fascism”. If someone accused me of that, I’d probably lash out at them too.

          • Rascal

            I said that he had “jazzhands mcFeels” who runs “fash the nation” on his episode 70 show that feels fascism may be an interim solution to save the West. I never once said that Chris or any Libertarian directly advocates fascism. Chris identifies as a Rothbardian Libertarian, but also realizes survival is at stake and is apparently willing to listen to some ideas on the alright, even if he doesn’t necessarily convert. You really need to watch episode 70, as it is quite clear you have not.

            I believe Chris is a mirror image of me. I am altright, but willing to listen to Libertarian ideas. Chris is Libertarian willing to listen to altright ideas.

          • Richard Chiu

            No reasonable person who read what you posted could fail to infer that you were claiming Cantwell was advocating fascism. You attempted to defend that claim across multiple posts before giving up and claiming that by “him” you were referring to someone entirely different whom you had not specified previously (nor had Paendragon, to whom you were replying at the time).

            Still, granting that you really didn’t understand appropriate syntax well enough to make yourself clear about who you were and weren’t accusing of fascism, your dishonest refusal to accept the simple answer to your question about why Cantwell reacted badly to that speaks volumes about your intellectual honesty.

          • Rascal

            Cantwell’s reaction is irrelevant to my statements. He never pointed out where I was wrong, and is projecting his frustration with current Libertarianism on to me.

            Please provide exact quotes where I labeled him a fascist. I have correctly pointed out he had a former libertarian advocating fascism as an interim solution on his show. A view point I happen to agree with.

            You really need to watch the first 15-20 minutes of episode 70 to understand where I am coming from.

          • Richard Chiu

            “Also your mistake is to think that kosher, cornball conservatism represents the “right”. They are no more right than most democrats. He is referring to hardcore fascism, and the altright of which there are many that would love nothing more than to begin the day of the rope.”

            Cantwell very reasonably interpreted this as you asserting that he supported fascism. He didn’t waste time pointing out exactly where you were wrong BECAUSE HE THOUGHT IT WAS TOO OBVIOUS TO BOTHER CLARIFYING.

            When I tried explaining to you why Cantwell was upset, you wasted a dozen posts claiming that fascism is the only hope for libertarians before deciding to claim that you weren’t saying Cantwell accepted it. I could quote them all, if you like.

            Again, no reasonable person could have thought you were honestly not saying Cantwell was or should be flirting with fascism.

          • Rascal

            If he is not flirting with fascism than why did he let “fash the nation” on his show? Why is he regularly going on TRS podcasts? These are the banner carriers of fascism to save the West. Go listen to TRS podcasts. They regularly laugh at the nativity of Libertarians. I applaud Chris’s open mindedness in his search for allies to save his ideology.

            When he is not bursting into aspie fits Chris is a smart guy. He realizes that Libertarianism has been high lacked by marxist jackles. He also realizes that Libertarians do not have the immune system to stop it.

            There is no hope for modern Libertarians unless you go all in to fight Marxists. Neocons, conservatives, and libertarians aren’t willing to do it. in fact they are willing to ally with it to avoid being acalled racist. I am talking about saving the West, which happens to be the only place Libertarianism has a chance to exist.

          • Richard Chiu

            Going “all in to fight Marxists” means opposing ALL forms of totalitarian collectivism that are fundamentally similar.

            And I notice that you’re back to accusing Cantwell of embracing hardcore fascism again.

          • Rascal

            You have to fight fire with fire. There is a reason Libertarianism is non existent at the national level. There is a reason Trump is the front runner in the GOP. If Chris doesn’t want to be associated what so ever with fascism than may I recommend he stay off shows pushing for fascism, and not have guests that support fascism as an interim solution. Until then Libertarians cannot have it both ways.

          • Richard Chiu

            And this is where the final disconnect appears. Libertarians can’t even engage differing viewpoints in good faith respect for the right to free speech without being accused of supporting what they fail to violently suppress.

            Respecting the right of free speech enough to discuss disagreements rather than shout them down is not “having it both ways”. It’s being principled and consistent about not initiating force against people who haven’t actually committed a crime, even if their opinions tend to justify crimes they might actually attempt at some point.

          • Rascal

            Poor Libertarians. Please, spare me the victim complex. Take responsibility for your actions. If you say, or do something at least have the courage to own it.

          • Richard Chiu

            Are you being intentionally ironic now?

          • Ganesh

            You fail to recognize that individuals acting individually are an entirely inert political force. It’s like a trained and disciplined football team playing against a group of people who don’t believe they are even on a team at all.

            I think there may well need to be a a very un-libertarian interim step; libertarians efforts have failed for decades and show no sign of succeeding, and civilization is at such a crisis point that all options should be on the table.

          • lowell houser

            I believe libertarianism arises do to epigenetic variables just like r/K, and that libertarians exist for a every specific job within humanity, and that job is to go setup a beachhead in new undeveloped lands, or planets. We rise when there are new frontiers to go confront, where we will not be competing for resources with each other so much as simply trying to survive whatever the new environment can throw at us. Once that’s accomplished, r/K invades, displaces us, we go dormant, and the cycle begins again with new lands discovered.

            I don’t believe that it’s an accident that the rise of modern libertarianism correlates with the space race. The reason we exist now is to take r/K to the stars, so that they can do to each new planet what they’ve done to Earth. The difference is that this time we’ll never run out of new territory, never go dormant, and perhaps even start to increase as percentage of the population.

            As to the racial makeup of it all, it took hundreds of years to cleanse Europe of the lat muslim invasion, but somehow I doubt this will take that long. The governments that currently exist won’t do it, so the people will replace them and do it then. Europe has a grand tradition forced relocation.

            America is finally ripe for a fascist dictator, and I can only hope for a best case which roughly follows the societal path envisioned in Heilein’s Starship Troopers, where the veterans rise up and create a sort of neo-Spartan meritocracy. A place where the r’s can survive and even flourish after a time, but where they simply cannot ever achieve the political power needed to set society back down the self-destructive path we’re on now.

          • Rascal

            Some great points. Libertarianism is closely related to the pioneer spirit of young America, and the European’s that speckled across the globe in the previous millennium. That is why it is my opinion that Libertarianism is really only found in America. It was the perfect ingredients under the perfect conditions, kind of like Earth and the conditions for sustaining of life.

            Also agree that space exploration is a great incubator for this ideology. Problem is we are not quite there yet.

            As for Europe and the West in general I am not enthusiastic at the chances. We have seen 2/3 of Western Civilization’s territory gobbled up over the last 1500 years, apparently lost forever. America is currently being given away to any tom Dick or Harry that walks in. This is “problematic” because Western civilization literally gave birth to Libertarianism, and without it the chances of humans replicating it are severely limited, if not impossible. The entire rest of the world is completely collective.

          • Richard Chiu

            That’s…a bit grim. At least, it doesn’t leave much hope for libertarianism.

            I don’t doubt that there will always be class distinctions. But the people with real class shouldn’t ever come to accept the lot of the lower classes as something that can’t be changed. The struggle against dependency and slavery needs to go on, just as much as the struggle to live on in the face of death.

    • Richard Chiu

      Rabbits (and other small rodents) are infamous for ganging up and aggressively attacking other animals as long as the stakes are low. This is why elephants are famously scared of mice (actually, it is squirrels they fear), because they do not eat rodents and the only way they have to deter the attacks of them is by freaking out and stomping about in a rage.

      This is typical of many or most r strategist populations (from insects on up), they are very willing to resort to aggression as long as the opponent is unlikely to kill them.

      It is K strategists which take violence seriously and only resort to it with the understanding that any aggression could lead to the death of one of the combatants.

  • paendragon

    Re: “While leftists are quite fond of State violence and have even been known to violently attack political opponents during otherwise peaceful
    demonstrations, they are, at least rhetorically, pacifists at heart. Rabbits do not fight wolves, they scurry into holes in the ground fearing for their survival as their weak little hearts beat rapidly.”

    Which proves your model to be a merely rhetorical straw-man one, Chris.

    • Rascal

      He didn’t bring race into it which is why it is only half the story. White liberals are cowardly, but BLM are wolves that white liberals have aligned with against the wolves in their their own space. BLM is like the introduction of a new predator into an existing habitat that competes with the wolves currently living there.

  • paendragon

    The whole initial premise, that we’re all no more than animals at the mercy of our evolved instincts is not only buying into the leftards’ predestination excuses, but is also actually very easily disproven: there are no behaviors which cannot be overcome by the rational mind; there are no true “addictions” – even to such survival basics food, air or water! as is proven time and again by hunger strikers and people who cut off their own oxygen.

    Other that that, it’s also a mere mirror of one of Ziggy Fraud’s original fallacies, that of his metaphoric anthropomorphic contortions of the imaginary Id, Ego, and Superego. Once again: all easily disproven by observation.

    Bottom line: we have been conditioned to such inane behaviors by a deliberate government/finance/industrial/education cadre program to control us. I’ll go with the nurture over nature every time, because basic open individualistic anarcho-capitalism inevitably leads to collectivist communism every time through compound concentration of capital!

    Nice try, though!

    😉

    • Rascal

      You are completely ignoring the experience of other humans. You live in a high trust society with a high IQ, i.e white Western Civ which has very vertical ideologies. Drop the average IQ 20-25 points, some place like say Somalia, or Syria and then talk.

      Ignore that at your own peril because they are coming here, which I expect you too. That is why Libertarianism will die to Chris’s point.

      • paendragon

        Even the dumbest, slowest retard can understand the simple basic Golden Rule as “Do Not Attack First.”

        But the muslims are taught the exact opposite from birth.

        • Rascal

          Not trying to sound patronizing but I am glad that you acknowledge the gaping cultural differences. We are in 100% agreement.

  • Matthew Reece

    “By his superior numbers, the leftist lives at the expense of the rightist as would a parasite. As a result, we live in a world where the rabbits rule and feed upon the wolves, and the insanity of that unnatural order is being displayed by increasingly catastrophic outcomes.”
    This is indeed a revolt against nature, and nature has a habit of crushing rebellions against itself by whatever means are necessary.

  • Marlow Mosier

    Back in 1977 I believe it was, Reason magazine published an article that has stayed with me ever since. Like the rK theory Anonymous Consevative put forward, and Chris incorporates here, the Reason article is similar in offering an explanation as to why reason and evidence are so ineffectual at converting the masses to embracing libertarianism. Briefly, it focused on a theory attributed to developmental psychologist Piaget, which held that the cognitive development of 60-70% of people never develops to the stage of being able to follow and understand abstract, conceptual chains of reasoning. Most people’s understanding stops at the empirical level such that they will know how to care for babies, repair trucks, cook meals, etc. By contrast, the conceptual reasoning required to follow the methodology of Austrian economics, for example, from a priori principles to all their logical implications, is, according to Piaget, an impossible task for the masses of people.

    • paendragon

      Did Piaget say WHY this was so? Was it maybe only because most people don’t get taught that sort of thing at an early enough age (i.e: nurture) or did he find it was due to hard-wired genetics (nature)?

      • Marlow Mosier

        Sadly, i don’t have that information. Several years ago i contacted Reason asking how I could get a copy of the article but was told it wasn’t archived. I suppose if I were a little more inquisitive I should look directly into Piaget’s writings.

        • paendragon

          Hm. A quick Google check of the “Piaget cognitive development” keywords led me to wiki which claims he admitted to both nature AND nurture being influential:

          wikipedia org /wiki/Piaget’s_theory_of_cognitive_development

      • Richard Chiu

        All human knowledge is based on personal experience, which is subject to both limitations of circumstance and innate sensory capacity. You can build quite high from a solid foundation, but you cannot build anything which is not supported by the foundation.

        There is the old saying about “a conservative is a former liberal who was mugged.” Varients exist, but the core truth is that reason can only work if you have experiences which incline to you think reason matters.

        • paendragon

          Some people are born without pain receptors, yet still manage to learn things.

          • Richard Chiu

            Sure. But they are still subject to deviations from what they desire. They still have other sensory mechanisms which make it apparent when an outcome is infelicitous. And they learn to pay careful attention to those indications or they die.

    • Rascal

      What you say is absolutely true and it is impacted by IQ. The rabbits, i.e white liberals have become so lazy from feasting on the wolves efforts that they don’t even breed anymore. What they do do is import even lower IQ rabbits AND wolves that are completely alien to the ecosystem. For that effort they expect political loyalty….for now.

      That is why libertarianism is doomed. You all will not be successful selling Libertarian ideals like flat tax rates to low IQ rabbits OR wolves from Somalia.

  • pitchinwedge

    Maybe wolves and rabbits doesn’t fit the r/K. I liken it to Middle Earth — Orcs vs. the Ents.

    Lefts are like the orcs. Unthinking. Brutish and quick to kill.

    The Right is like the Ents. Fewer and fewer of us; and hard to breed; but insane when riled up.

    • IRONMANAustralia

      Fuck off Tolkienfag.

      It was bad enough when that Star Trek nerd called in talking about whether he was more Klingon or Vulcan. We sure as fuck don’t need any of that supergay Lord of the Rings faggotry shitting up the conversation.

      • Richard Chiu

        Oh come now, it’s not like he compared K strategists to elves, which is the more usual offense.

        Of course, Ents hardly seem like procreative strategists at all, given that losing their entire female population through simple disinterest is not anything anyone seriously interested in procreation ever does.

        Okay, I see your point about supergay faggotry, except Ents were further gone than even that.

    • Lao Zoot

      I was just going to upvote your comment and move on, but I figured I’d comment further just to piss on the Eucalyptus Nigger below:
      I’d always thought of the right more as Men of the West/ Gondorians, with those few who truly understand the situation as those of Numenorean descent.
      But yeah, the lefties are definitely Orcish.

  • AtlasAikido

    Re: the elephant, the rider and impulse control…

    Jonathan Haidt, author of The Happiness Hypothesis, uses the metaphor of a rider and an elephant. The non-verbal, not conscious me is the elephant, which has a mind of its own that conscious me does not control. As the rider with consciousness, however, I can influence the elephant.

    Let me give an example. For much of my life, I didn’t know what I was feeling, until meditation helped me realize that I often I felt angry. I used the Intensity Exercise a number of times, using specific triggers from times I had been angry with someone close to me.

    It was magic. This lifetime pattern began to shift and I noticed I had more control. I began to be aware of anger in all kinds of situations more quickly, at the first flicker of the feeling in my body, and then I had more control over where I chose to put my attention. Since doing those few (perhaps three) Intensity Exercises on anger, I have not had the same kind of full blown anger because I’ve been able to catch it early on.

    Again, this does not mean that I control the arising of it. I don’t, that part is the elephant. But once it is arising and I’ve noticed it, then the control comes through the things I can do to influence it….

    mediateyourlife (dot) com/blog/2014/08/22/how-much-control-do-we-have-over-what-we-feel/

    Here is the Intensity Exercise:

    …Someone somewhere inevitably gets dialed into an intense unrehearsed role play of getting triggered in uncharted territory of Fight, Flight, Freeze, Domination Obligation and Punishment Language and mind set Habit… (I notice the solution is in the problem).

    Why not start rehearsing a dialed down version of trigger Intensity Training with a partner? Tell your practice partner what you think triggers you?

    Put up the time out flag the moment you feel the stir of FFF emotion! Step to a third chair of mediation and administer self empathy using a Self Connect map to bring it all down a notch.

    Intensity Exercise Level 3 Demonstration

    youtu (dot) be/RW96aEeZqAA

    Debrief. Plan, practice and learn.

    I have further simplified and introduce context and other aspects such as using phone access maps and tables and demos to create space for new insights using internal mediation.

    connect (dot) liberty (dot) me/gordon-lightfoot-marshal-rosenberg-and-my-connection/

    Sent from my 4G LTE Device

    • Richard Chiu

      I guess the point is that humans do in fact ride elephants on a fairly regular basis by understanding how the elephant responds to situations and controlling the stimulus to ensure compliance with the rider’s will…within limits.

      And likewise, humans also sometimes learn to subject the irrational mind by using the rational portion to control what the irrational mind experiences.

  • lufAdmin

    Well written. Libertarians are often unable to differentiate between tactics and the goal. More liberty should be the goal, and non-libertarian tactics (such as immigration control) can thus be used to achieve that goal rather than welcoming in people who would then take away your liberties and vote for more state power and then calling yourself ‘principled’ for letting it happen. Reality before ideology.

    • Richard Chiu

      I am not really in favor of immigration control so much as resistant to the forcible extraction of taxes and other restrictions on citizens necessary to make immigration feasible and attractive.

      Abolition of the welfare state and all controls on the use of defensive force against criminals would basically eliminate the need to “control” immigration. But well short of that, abolition of specific government programs to force people to import and support hostile invaders would be a nice start.

    • Libertymike

      The higher the ends, the higher must be the means. Non-libertarian tactics result in more government.

      • Richard Chiu

        Hmmm…but ultimately what are valid ends other than what individuals choose for themselves?

        Some ends can’t be reached by any means, some can be reached by several. Some ends can only be reached by one means in a given circumstance.

        If I have a choice for preserving my individual freedom that doesn’t require killing anyone else, then maybe I should choose that, but who’s to say I always have that choice? I wished for such a choice, wished for it long and hard, in fact. But it has not appeared.

    • Immigration control leads to LESS liberty and MORE government control. It is an absurd “tactic” for anyone who’s alleged goal is liberty.

      The ends do NOT justify the means. Using bad means is ALWAYS wrong, no matter how “good” your intentions are. The moral costs of initiated force far outweigh any claimed benefit.

      There are ALWAYS non-violent alternatives to every action or thing that The State does or “provides”.

      • Phillip Stout

        There is always a “non-violent” alternative to every State action? I guess that claim can be made. You can always react to State with “non-violent”, but what are the results? I can’t try and converse my way out of a bear attack, thats a non-violent option, but there are violent options that improve my odds of the desired results.

        • You are right. I phrased that badly.
          Instead of There are ALWAYS non-violent alternatives to every action or thing that The State does or “provides”.
          I should have written:
          There are ALWAYS non-violent alternatives to every program that The State undertakes.

      • DaveElectric .

        First of all, “liberty” is not merely the lack of control. Liberty is not the lack of rules or obligation. It’s the lack of aggression. To assert that all rules are a contradiction to liberty is a complete misunderstanding of what liberty is in the first place. Controlling immigration is good because every individual has a right to influence the government (even if the government itself is evil) as long as influencing the government in their favor serves the Non-Aggression Principle. If you have a race of people who are going to increase the size of government which increases aggression then clearly you have a right to expel those people from your country in reverence to your duty to Non-Aggression (liberty).

        Second, violence doesn’t necessarily equal aggression. Hasn’t this been said like a million times? When are you libertarians gonna get that through your brains? It’s retarded misunderstandings like this that prevent libertarianism from being taken seriously. Aggression is not the mere act of violence. It’s a category of violence that has nothing to do with preventing violence. Self-defense is violence. Is self-defense wrong? No it isn’t because it’s not in the category of “aggression”.

        Third, “There are ALWAYS non-violent alternatives to every program that The
        State undertakes.” Is making two bogus assumptions. A)That everything the state provides ought to be provided in the first place and b)that there is a non-violent way to provide those things.

        Prison for example a)shouldn’t be provided by the free market even if the free market could theoretically provide it and b)there is no non-violent way to run a prison in a free market because a prison is an economically inefficient manner of punishing crime.

    • kevin777

      Right on the money. Well said.

  • Nilo BP

    I have a problem with the term “neoreactionary”. It’s not enough to react and try to take things back to the way they were before. That will never happen, time doesn’t run backwards (at least not from our point of view). Any ideology that wants to be successful needs a blueprint for a future that’s better than present AND past. That’s what ideologies are for, they provide hope; if they can’t do that, they’re worthless.

    A good example is modern conservatism in America. Over half a century choosing the lesser of two evils and longing for the old (imaginary) glory days when the Constitution was respected, and what do they have to show for it? Very little. The march of statism, and particularly leftism, has been inexorable, because the statists promise salvation through government: “tomorrow you’ll have more and more stuff, because someone will magically produce it and we’ll distribute it.” It’s laughable, but so are mystical revelations, and people have been believing in those for a while.

    Gary North has written extensively on the subject. He always stresses that “you can’t beat something with nothing”. Fortunately, Western values aren’t nothing, and they haven’t failed, even though they’ve been buried by the democratic-Keynesian political order. We need to do much more than just look back to the olden days; we need to take these values and build on them, make everyone see the promise of prosperity and greatness in them.

    Come to think of it, I’m as guilty as anyone of focusing on criticizing statism, instead of promoting a positive alternative. I’ll have to start working on it.

    • Richard Chiu

      I think that libertarians are generally open to the idea of “voluntary nations”. I don’t claim to know where “anarchists” stand on that issue, but I still associate the term with its origin as a reference to people presuming to rule without respecting any authority themselves, I accept that people use it in other senses but I also can’t help but treat those senses as tentative and indefinite.

      A voluntary nation would have to be much smaller, it would be dependent on the voluntary efforts of the armed citizen for defense (including proactive defense), and could not sustain the large bureaucracy or state welfare which requires taxation to feed. It has been proposed and has occasionally been practiced, a lot of people forget that the only reason vast stores of wealth and technology exist today for Statists to abuse is because relatively libertarian societies at some point left someone free to create that wealth and technology, it doesn’t magically happen on its own.

    • Ganesh

      > We need to do much more than just look back to the olden days; we need to take these values and build on them, make everyone see the promise of prosperity and greatness in them.

      I think you’d find yourself quite comfortable in neoreactionary circles…

  • Richard Chiu

    “To make a long story short, that rider can desire the elephant to go straight all he wants, but if the elephant decides to turn right or left, the human rider has little practical say in the matter.”

    Actually, a skilled, experienced human rider can exert a lot of influence over whether an elephant ‘decides’ to turn right or left. Because reason has the power to “out-think”, and thus out-maneuver, instinct. The entire practical basis of the state is not just mindless violence, but careful control of how violence is applied to control the stimulus on which the instincts of the masses operate to ‘decide’ what to do. People are conditioned to reflexively praise the police, not because of uncontrolled, random violence by police, but by considered application of violence against challenges to the authority of the police (including actual criminality, when ‘securing rights to citizens’ is part of the narrative justifying the existence of the police). It is precisely because those running things are no longer intelligent enough to use the violence of the state in a controlled manner that they are no longer able to use it to exert as much meaningful control.

    I think the modern state has doomed itself by democratization of the leadership, leading to a very high percentage of total imbeciles who are simply mentally incapable of using the force at their disposal to stabilize and control society. The collapse of the modern state will not be an unmitigated good…there are, after all, many states in the world (most notably Communist China) which are NOT going to collapse because they are in no way modern democratic states. Also, a lot of people are going to die, and not all of them those who are the just prey of Darwin anyway. But the collapse of the modern democratic state still represents a chance for a different rider to take a turn on the elephant.

    I want to clarify another point. The following is entirely true, but subject to misinterpretation.

    “The wolves and the rabbits will compete for control of the State apparatus no matter what philosophical enlightenment the libertarian minority manages to obtain. Whatever rabbits and wolves he recruits to his side will be few in number since their biological drivers outweigh their logical thought processes, and even their logical thought processes see the problem of allowing the other group to gain control of the State apparatus. Each seek to advance the interests of their species at the expense of the other, and they will be in eternal competition until one of two things happen.

    1. The other side is exterminated.

    2. The State apparatus is no longer an option.

    One of these outcomes is more likely than the other, much to the dismay of the libertarian.”

    The important point to keep in mind is that humans are not actually rabbits and wolves. Compared to actual rabbits, almost all humans are wolves…and most humans are wolves compared to wolves. So the distinction between “rabbits and wolves” is a matter of relative r/K strategy preference, not an absolute distinction between separate populations. This is not two coins, but two sides of the same coin. Even if we efface one side of the coin, we still have a coin with two sides.

    Or, to put it bluntly, even if the 10% of the population which adheres to a relative K strategy preference ceases tolerating the rest of the population which adheres to a relative r strategy preference, there will still be a relative K strategy preference minority and a relative r strategy preference majority based on the new median point of the new population. The reduced population will eventually move the r/K strategy median far enough that they will not support a large, intrusive, overwhelmingly powerful State apparatus capable of seriously swaying the terms of the conflict.

    If, on the other hand, the majority of the population with an r strategy preference manages to use the State to eliminate the K strategist minority, and does it repeatedly, then there is a good chance of a runaway extinction process to occur, terminating when the last dregs of the “99%” can no longer support a state…and find themselves incapable of sustaining their own lives without one to provide for them. But given the tendency of the K strategists to be more intelligent and adaptable than the r strategists, and thus to have a significant influence on any state, this is unlikely absent a gross miscalculation by the “elites” involving use of biological weapons.

    Possible, but not more likely than the collapse of the modern state.

    The coming collapse of the modern democratic state will also involve a global breakdown of civilization in much of the Western world. It won’t be a picnic. But it will be survivable by those who have learned to live without depending on the State.

    • Chris’ point is that expecting those adults who choose not to reason to change their minds and become rational on a mass scale is stupid and doomed to failure.

      • Richard Chiu

        I had thought Chris already accepted that. I thought he was saying that libertarianism was doomed to lose out because libertarians would always be outnumbered by people incapable of and unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives.

        I have always taken it for granted that a willingness to accept the painful or even fatal results of other’s bad choices for their own lives was part of the core of libertarianism. Though perhaps Chris is only now realizing the grim math which makes such outcomes likely for the overwhelming majority in a really libertarian society?

        I suppose if it were really possible to indefinitely defer such consequences by abandoning libertarianism, which every kind of state promises to accomplish, then it would make sense to question whether libertarianism is worth the cost. But every other political system just defers the grim cost onto some later generation, where it will be exacted with a terrible compound interest. That is the historical moment we confront today, when all the enticing lies of government bounty, written in the blood of future generations, is imminently due.

  • TheTokkin .

    The reality is that political views are not borne from genetic differences. The fact that conservative views and liberal views are so strongly geographically distributed should automatically make this self-evident to everyone. Rural lands with diffuse populations inhabiting smaller towns dominated by conservative institutions like the Church, tend to have conservative majorities. Dense urban centers with active cultural and economic life creates a variety of political, economic and cultural institutions that have the resources to promote a variety of different political viewpoints. Urban life allows people to shape their own political views free of conservative monopoly on their time. In smaller townships, people are a captive audience to conservative institutions, which is why inland areas are always more conservative no matter where you go in the world.

    • ancapistani

      Mostly agree. r/K is a useful framework when looking at significantly different reproductive strategies just as alpha/beta behavior helps explain some social dynamics. But the way these theories are being adopted/adapted by Kinsella, Whittle, and Cantwell, is pure self-congratulatory projection. “WE are the wolfpack of rational long term K-types and THEY are the weak irrational r-types” “WE are alphas, THEY are betas”

      Political views, however, do have some genetic basis in as much as personality has a genetic basis. Political views are a result of many factors, genes and geography just being a couple of them.

      • Richard Chiu

        It isn’t really an issue of genetics (though there are genetic influences).

        It’s a matter of behavior. There is behavior set which only secures a surviving posterity when someone else is willing and able to take care of them, and a behavior set which provides for the survival of one’s own posterity.

        And only one of them is consistent with actually being independent and free.

        • ancapistani

          As I said “Political views, however, do have some genetic basis” Key modifier “some”

          You say it is a matter of behavior, but behavior too has a genetic component. Don’t conflate this with genetic determinism.

          • Richard Chiu

            I’m not. I’m just pointing out that we only care about the behavioral expression, we cannot afford to study and have no principled interest in knowing the genetic factors. Yes, r/K behavior expression varies by race. No, acknowledging this isn’t racist. No, we cannot use race to usefully predict individual behavior (nor even group behavior absent extensive cultural factors which render the actual racial information largely superfluous).

            And, most importantly, no, Cantwell isn’t just praising his own superior genetics. Nor even praising his behavior much. He’s just pointing out that r/K strategy behavior is too important to be ignored in understanding the problem of human irresponsibility.

            Which is overwhelmingly true for anyone who seriously cares about applying libertarian principles to society at large. There are irresponsible things a culture can encourage and remain libertarian, sexual irresponsibility is not one of them because it is the primary determinant of whether children can be raised to take responsibility for themselves.

          • ancapistani

            Good, so you agree that there are genetic factors involved in behavioral expression. You just don’t care about them. Fine.

            But don’t extend your willful ignorance on the matter to me. “We cannot afford to study and have no principled interest in knowing the genetic factors.”

            Nope. It might be of no interest to you, but I think the link between genetics and behavior merits as much or even more investigation than r/K theory. As TheTokkin pointed out, applying r/K to political belief is mostly an ad-hoc business – certainly more than genetics.

            But if you think it is “too important to be ignored in understanding the problem of human irresponsibility” then how much more is the field of genetics upon which r/K is ultimately based?

            Further absurd is your assertion that the recent interest in r/K theory in the libertarian blogosphere is essential and necessary for anyone “who seriously cares about applying libertarian principles to society at large”.

            You really should stop making inferences, and there are some others I haven’t covered, that your premises don’t support.

          • Richard Chiu

            If you’re serious about studying genetic factors, you have to start by carefully studying individual behavior within a large population, then studying their genetics, then linking the genetic factors to the behaviors. Then to make use of that, you need to get reliable genetic testing of the entire population, then link genetic factors back to individuals, and check their behavior to see if it matches the genetic prediction.

            We can stop at studying individual behavior. First stop, last stop, we don’t care about the interesting but irrelevant science in between what an individual does and what an individual does. We care about what an individual does.

          • ancapistani

            “If you’re serious about studying r/K, you have to start by enumerating the variables in carrying capacity, then implementing those figures in a population dynamics model, then providing confidence intervals and significance levels. Then to make use of that you need to do multiple randomized samples over time and check to see if the model matches the prediction”

            *You* can stop at studying individual behavior. Your time, your prerogative. I don’t know who this “we” is but it certainly does not include me and I’m pretty sure you aren’t the head of some think tank. But genes inform the discussion of individual behavior and you can choose to be willfully ignorant of the matter if you want but don’t pretend that what an individual does isn’t majorly influenced by their genetics.

          • Richard Chiu

            We don’t care why people behave as they do, because nothing much changes about how we must respond to their behavior.

            Whether someone has a genetic predisposition to crime or not has no relevance on how we respond to their criminal behavior…or lack of same.

            We don’t care if r strategists are just acting opportunistically or can’t adopt a K strategy. We punish them for their unacceptable behavior until it stops.

          • ancapistani

            “We don’t care why people behave as they do,”

            Again, who is this “we”? *You* don’t care about the why and that’s your call. Finding out why things are the way they are matters to me though. It also matters to you if you push rK theory, which you do. But I guess being logically consistent isn’t your thing.

            “We don’t care if r strategists are just acting opportunistically or can’t adopt a K strategy. We punish them for their unacceptable behavior until it stops.”

            Are you unable to think outside of a collective “we”? Maybe a predisposition to social harmony and collective thinking was selected for in Chinese populations and that’s why you default to it, but if you are speaking for yourself, the proper pronoun is I.

          • Richard Chiu

            Realists. Individualists, People who are going to survive the global collapse of civilization. I’m making a concession here by admitting it might not just be me. But if I’m the only one, then so be it.

            Why someone does something matters to me if I’m going to treat them differently based on their reasons. But in the case of criminals, including r strategists, I really don’t have the luxury of making exceptions based on their sob story…whether it was “I was born this way” or “I only did it because of the situation” or some other B.S. entirely.

            I’m not going to help anyone survive who insists we need to treat dangerous criminals differently based on their reasons for committing crimes. I don’t believe any group that does so has any real chance of survival…and I wouldn’t be above sabotaging whatever chances such a group might have in order to enhance my own. Because they deserve it.

          • ancapistani

            “Realists. Individualists, People who are going to survive the global collapse of civilization. I’m making a concession here by admitting it might not just be me. But if I’m the only one, then so be it.”

            Except you do not speak for realists, individualists, or survivalists.

            “Why someone does something matters to me if I’m going to treat them differently based on their reasons.”

            Okay fine. You think knowing “why” is important under certain conditions. I think knowing “why” is important in itself.

            “I’m not going to help anyone survive who insists we need to treat dangerous criminals differently based on their reasons for committing crimes.”

            The Federal Government does just that but you help them survive, just like the rest of us. Or do you not pay taxes. In that case, I gotta give you a lot of respect for that.

          • Richard Chiu

            Nobody else speaks for realists, individualists, or survivalists any more than I do. But we are no longer content to be silenced and marginalized simply because we do not subscribe to the doctrines of false prophets.

            I think knowing things is interesting. That doesn’t make it important enough to divert my time and energy from doing what I must to survive. That’s how survivalists differ from those who are unwilling to prioritize survival over their ideological outlook.

            I don’t pay taxes. I also don’t refrain from calling for the use of legitimate defensive force against the agents and officers of the state, which basically means killing them as soon as their actions indicate active criminal intent. My opportunities to personally exercise such defensive force have been somewhat lacking recently, despite what some statists have promised me. So I’m in the process of shopping around a bit for tactically sound ways to expand those opportunities.

          • ancapistani

            “Nobody else speaks for realists, individualists, or survivalists any more than I do.”

            Except you don’t. Because you, like me, are a nobody. Chris Cantwell has greater claim to speak for those groups than you do and his site is in the 80,000th place in the US.

            “But we are no longer content to be silenced and marginalized simply because we do not subscribe to the doctrines of false prophets.”

            There’s that “we” again. Well at least you are getting better.

            “I think knowing things is interesting. That doesn’t make it important enough to divert my time and energy from doing what I must to survive.”

            Okay, so rK theory is all-important but genetics, the field that underpins rK and is actually a legitimate science isn’t. Haha sure. Dude, you are spending your time writing hundreds of comments on Disqus; don’t pretend you are actually spending all your time prepping.

            “I don’t pay taxes.”

            Well, gotta hand it to you, if you’ve managed to do that and stay out of prison, I’d love to learn how. I doubt I’d ever be able to convince the gas station attendant to remove the included taxes or the county treasurer to do nothing if I don’t pay property taxes. Then there’s all that sales tax when I go shopping.

          • Richard Chiu

            You’re rather missing the point. Realists, individualists, and survivalists don’t depend on popularity contests to decide who speaks for them.

            I am myself. But I am not the only person who stands aloof from your collectivist delusions.

            I got to let things set sometimes. Making my ‘illegal’ guns and all that.

            I avoid going to jail for not paying taxes by letting the cops know if they bother me with their criminal impositions, I’ll kill them, and then I’ll probably kill everyone that liked them well enough to be upset about me killing them. It doesn’t work for everyone, apparently you have to actually be willing and able to kill a lot of people.

          • ancapistani

            “You’re rather missing the point. Realists, individualists, and survivalists don’t depend on popularity contests to decide who speaks for them.”

            The point was that you think you speak for all kinds of groups when you don’t. I consider myself a realist, individualist, and even survivalist, but someone as ignorant and inconsistent as you sure does NOT speak for me. Funny how you think I’m the collectivist though when you can’t help but think and even write in those terms.

            “I avoid going to jail for not paying taxes by letting the cops know if they bother me with their criminal impositions, I’ll kill them, and then I’ll probably kill everyone that liked them well enough to be upset about me killing them.”

            So when you get gasoline, you don’t pay for it? Or you threaten to kill the cashier if they don’t remove the Federal tax portion from the bill?

          • Richard Chiu

            You know I don’t consider you a realist, individualist, or survivalist. Admittedly, that’s just based on this conversation, but given that all those subjects have been central to our respective positions I think that’s not entirely unjustified.

            As for specifics of how I avoid paying taxes, and exact retribution on those attempting to claim them from me, you’ve proven yourself less worthy of being trusted with that information than the NSA.

          • ancapistani

            “You know I don’t consider you a realist, individualist, or survivalist.”

            Considering you barely have an understanding of what those terms mean, that doesn’t mean much.

            “As for specifics of how I avoid paying taxes … [no specifics provided]”

            That’s what I thought.

          • Richard Chiu

            Given that you’ve declined to answer whether you pay taxes, it’s clear to me (and everyone else) that you have no real interest in learning ways to avoid paying taxes, only in denigrating me for doing so.

            At least the NSA collects data on me for some purpose other than trying ot mock me personally to try and ad hominem my arguments.

          • ancapistani

            I do pay taxes because I know that people who don’t end up in jail. Which means you are either lying (probably the case), or you know something Erwin Schiff, Wesley Snipes, and thousands of other jailed tax evaders know.

            No need to denigrate you because your arguments and posts do that for me.

          • Richard Chiu

            So, when you claimed that I helped the Federal Government survive, you were merely rhetorically denigrating with a blanket condemnation which you are too cowardly to believe anyone could successfully avoid.

            Typical. But hardly acceptable.

            I will reiterate what I’ve said before, without going into further particulars. If you make it clear to cops that you are eager to kill them if they give you any pretext for doing so, they’ll either kill you or leave you alone. They already tried the former with me, and as it doesn’t seem to have worked particularly well for them they’re trying the latter. They have a lot of other reasons to try and put me in jail than the fact that I don’t pay taxes.

            That doesn’t negate the fact that I’ve apparently managed to give them enough reason not to try it.

          • ancapistani

            You help the Federal Government survive every time you pay taxes. There are Federal taxes every time you buy gasoline. Do you not buy gasoline? Why do you keep dodging?

            Personally I believe it’s because you are making shit up and playing Internet tough guy but if it’s true, then that means you are managing to do what many freedom minded people have been dreaming of.

            If you actually cared about spreading liberty, you would share your method. But I have a feeling you are going to find more excuses not to share your method which signals to everyone reading your posts that you are probably just a liar.

            “I will reiterate what I’ve said before, without going into further particulars.”

            The particulars are the important bit. You imply that they’ve tried to kill you and it didn’t turn out well for them. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

          • Richard Chiu

            I don’t make an extraordinary claim. Defying cops, and through them the Feds, isn’t an extraordinary claim. The Fed isn’t all powerful. They aren’t god-like, they’re just a bunch of criminals.

            They can only really terrorize you if you aren’t ready to kill them. It’s that simple. But you won’t accept this and that’s why you’re still a slave and never will be anything more.

            Yes, it does mean putting your own life on the line. Yes, it means working outside of the regular economy for the most part, and that can be inconvenient. Yes, I don’t have a lot of little luxuries I probably could if I were willing to be a slave or a criminal.

            No, it won’t work for everyone. I didn’t think it would “work” for me when I started, I thought they’d kill me and that’d be that. But I now doubt whether that’s even the most common outcome. There are limits on how brazenly they can murder people for refusing to be slaves before it makes the majority realize they’re enslaved.

          • ancapistani

            Don’t conflate all powerful with the ability to imprison and kidnap people who disagree. Where you got the idea that the Federal government is considered all powerful is probably just you projecting since I never said anything of the sort.

            Again, no specifics and just more grandstanding from you – as I predicted.

            “Yes, I don’t have a lot of little luxuries I probably could if I were willing to be a slave or a criminal.”

            When you say you don’t have little luxuries, do you count gasoline as a luxury and not buy any? I’ve asked you whether you buy gasoline several times and you keep dodging.

          • Richard Chiu

            Fine, I don’t buy gasoline through any legal channels, okay?

            But don’t expect me to answer any more questions since you obviously aren’t seriously interested in the answers.

          • ancapistani

            I am interested in answers which provide specifics which in this entire conversation, you have consistently failed to provide.

            It’s like saying you have the cure for cancer and that it has to do with food but won’t say what food, how to prepare that food, where to get it etc. You know stuff that would actually be useful and show you weren’t full of it.

          • Richard Chiu

            I’ve told you the only specific that is generally applicable to everyone.

            You have to be willing to let the cops know you are eager to have a reason to kill them, and that infringing your natural rights will do.

            Once you’re willing to do that, the main problem is how to live without allowing yourself to become a habitual criminal. And I don’t presume to pretend I’m not a criminal, so I don’t presume to teach other people that part.

          • ancapistani

            If you’ve truly managed to keep the cops at bay, then, as I’ve said before, that’s impressive. But if you really have been able to keep them out through threats, then I hope you don’t go around antagonizing them.

            I’m sure you are familiar with the Sovereign Citizens; you sound like one of them. Cops have a habit of ignoring them until their mood changes and another liberty activist gets murdered.

            As an ancap, illegal activity doesn’t bother me in itself. Bitcoins, the old Silk Road … all good things. But I still have a drivers license, pay for the license tabs, buy gas at regular gas stations, pay sales tax when I shop locally, pay income tax, etc., and you are implying you don’t. If you really aren’t doing these things, you really ought to be sharing your method somewhere.

          • “… you really ought to be sharing your method somewhere.”

            He has no obligation to share anything, anywhere–especially on a very public board such as this.

            If his ideas appeal to you, apply some of your own imagination and create your own freedom.

          • Richard Chiu

            Well, my method was to contact the cops and tell them they had a responsibility to obey the laws they presumed to enforce, and particularly not to violate the Constitution under which they presumed to derive authority both for the laws and their enforcement of them.

            Then they showed up and tried to murder me.

            Then I didn’t die. That’s probably the critical part you’d like to know, but I’m not sure there’s any method to it other than just being too stubborn.

            It’s funny you should mention Sovereign Citizens, because I was provoked into sending my message by an FBI page encouraging people to report Sovereign Citizens as criminals, and while I think their belief that the corrupt system can be beaten with legalese and document waving is just dumb, I objected to their political opinions being criminalized.

          • ancapistani

            Doubt they tried to murder you because if they really wanted to, you’d be dead unless you went Christopher Dorner on them. And even then, when it comes to cop killers, they take no prisoners which is why the lone wolf approach is doomed to failure.

            Anyway, there are all kinds of Sovereign Citizens and some of them do resort to force. Some of them drive without licenses and registration, do you do that? What about all those other things like sales tax etc.?

          • Richard Chiu

            You obviously have no serious intention of contemplating my answers.

          • ancapistani

            Do you actually have a specific answer to the questions of how you manage to avoid having a drivers license and avoid paying sales tax? And in case Dennis Wilson decides to repeat his argument: Mr. Chiu has already strongly advocated violence against cops so asking how he manages to not have a drivers license and not pay sales tax when buying groceries is not really asking much.

          • Richard Chiu

            I already told you, I do without a lot of things. I also commit some infractions against the legal code that may or may not be considered non-victimless crimes, including threatening cops with death. I don’t hunt down cops and kill them, at least, so I think I’m being very reasonable, but other people disagree.

            But the main thing I do without is any belief that I can be around cops and not be immediately ready to kill them at the least provocation. If you can commit to that, then the rest isn’t so hard. If you can’t, then the rest doesn’t matter.

          • ancapistani

            So you don’t drive or pay sales tax?

          • Richard Chiu

            I didn’t say I don’t drive. But if I get pulled over I have a plan to kill the cop and loot his stuff.

          • ancapistani

            So do you have a drivers license, registration, and license plate stickers then?

          • Richard Chiu

            No. Why would you assume I do?

          • ancapistani

            But you drive, right? Seems like your days are numbered if you are gonna chimp out in a traffic stop.

          • Richard Chiu

            Then so be it. I’m sure in eons to come you’ll be happy you chose eternity as a slave to the possibility of death.

          • ancapistani

            How frequently do you drive?

          • Richard Chiu

            As frequently as I feel like it. Do I have any reason to tell you more?

          • ancapistani

            Curious how often you are actually out there. Do you drive every day? 5 times a week? That’s what I mean by frequently.

          • Richard Chiu

            A. You’re lying. You’re not curious. You have no sincere or genuine interest in my life.

            B, That’s not a reason for me to tell you anything. I don’t like you. And I think anyone reviewing this conversation could see why.

            C. I’m not a slave. I don’t have to do things for people who I don’t like because they give me reasons to not like them.

          • ancapistani

            Okay. You’ve been pretty good about replying even though we’re obviously at odds. Not sure why you are getting so worked up.

          • Richard Chiu

            Because you’re a liar. You don’t believe in fighting the state, or even in refusing to serve it. You only want to be held guiltless for your conscious and willing subservience.

          • ancapistani

            It’s easy to avoid paying taxes and boast that you don’t when your mom does it for you.

          • Richard Chiu

            I have yet to convince many old women to stop serving the state. I obviously haven’t convinced you either.

          • ancapistani

            Ahaha, that’s because your mom is wiser than you are. It’ll be sad when she’s gone, but maybe you’ll finally understand what it’s like to have to survive in the real world.

          • Richard Chiu

            So the fact that I allow my family members to continue to live as they please means I don’t embrace “freedom” in your definition, while the fact that you refuse to acknowledge the validity of my choice not to serve tyranny makes you a brave ancapistani?

          • ancapistani

            Yeah, you “allow” your mom to keep taking care of you. Haha

          • Richard Chiu

            I allow my siblings to give me stuff too. I even allow people that aren’t related to me to engage in voluntary exchange. And I don’t force any of them to stop paying taxes, though I do suggest it and go so far as to offer to help them fight the Feds if they make an issue out of it (I generally only offer this to people who live near enough for that to mean something).

          • ancapistani

            You are blessed to have such a generous family to depend on.

          • Richard Chiu

            Sure. But I can depend on them because they’ve been able to depend on me.

          • ancapistani

            “they’ve been able to depend on me.”
            Haha, okay.

          • Richard Chiu

            Whereas you only believe in the power of the almighty dollar and the proofs of your loyal subservience to the state.

          • ancapistani

            Which is why I said somewhere. There are plenty of ways of disseminating information anonymously which is why I bothered to include the qualifier but I guess you couldn’t read between the lines.

            Also, ought doesn’t necessarily mean obligation as in he must do something but in this case it means it’s the right thing to do.

    • The reality is that political views are not borne from genetic differences.

      lol, first rule of behavioral genetics: “All human traits are heritable.”

      cry more, retard

  • youhavenocontrol

    The left has been systematically corrupting every facet of our lives for decades. Academia, popular culture, and government. There are numerous examples of this. It was just a matter of time before they corrupted libertarians. Progressive, post-modern fuck knuckles, all of them. The rhetorical war is all but lost. White people are bad. Men are bad. Straight people are bad. Christians are bad. Conservatism is bad. America is bad. Europe is bad. Infect all and deconstruct from the inside.

  • CharlesJavelin

    A lot of us former libertarians/ancaps have found ourselves in the same boat. What kicked it off for me was the identity politics of the left (SJWs in GamerGate, BlackLivesMatter), then race realism, then r/K selection theory.

    Libertarianism as it exists is flawed because too often it is divorced from biological imperatives. Its adherents implicitly point to tabula rasa: an unproven, unscientific pseudo-religious belief. Because few libertarians take any kind of position on this question, the left fills it up with their own nonsense.

    Even “freedom” is a compromised concept depending on r/K. We simply don’t see things the same way, don’t parse things the same way, and hold up ideals that are irreconcilable. The worst part is the best way to get an r to see things from a K perspective is to shock them into a situation where cowardice and flight isn’t a workable solution. How could that be accomplished? Military service? Going full Spartan and throwing them out into the woods until they earn their admission into society? Forcing them to compete in fights?

    I have no idea, but I’m sure such a society would face accusations of abuse and neglect, rather than an attempt to expose the r’s to reality so they understand the value of society and what they are getting for their participation in it.

    • Richard Chiu

      When those who require personal responsibility for individual actions do not allow the full consequences of personal irresponsibility to be born by the individuals involved, society will inevitably become too liberal to tolerate that requirement.

      But every currently successful society started as one based on personal responsibility before lapsing into coddling the childish egos of the unfit. That’s how they were successful. There does seem to be a generational drift, a successful society manages to insulate its posterity against the harshest realities, and after a few centuries at best this insulation has weakened the average character of the overall population such that a collapse becomes inevitable.

      But the individualists always are disproportionately represented among the survivors, because nobody else is well equipped to exist when society fails.

      • CharlesJavelin

        I agree wholeheartedly. The problem then becomes how to accomplish a stable civilization *without* reaching a collapse scenario while also minimizing the propagation of r factors. Early America is one scenario demonstrating how expansion to establish a new population can reinvigorate K.

        Maybe the best answer, then, is expansion into outer space. Since it is virtually boundless and not very forgiving of mistakes or laziness, maybe that is the ultimate K solution, as the parasitism of r cannot survive in an environment where entire populations can simply move on without end and leave r behind before it can establish itself.

        • Richard Chiu

          I’m not sure that achieving a stable civilization should even be a goal. Yes, civilization is nice, but having civilization as an end in itself tends to exacerbate the decadence and eventual collapse of civilization. I think that civilization should be regarded as a means to our individual ends, and only this attitude allows civilization to be corrected when it displays signs of decadence.

          When decadence is terminal and collapse is inevitable, the proper response is to prepare to survive without civilization. Anything else is futile. So whether we are dealing with a thriving civilization, a faltering civilization, or a failed society, there doesn’t seem to be much point in worrying about civilization rather than what it can (or can’t) do for us.

          While I like the idea of expansion into space, this would be in practical fact the anti-thesis of civilization as we understand it, since it naturally involves living in relatively small communities which are greatly separated from each other and thus can only expect to interact entirely voluntarily. Civilization exists to solve the problem of living in immediate proximity to more people than you, as a human being, can really know well enough to predict individually. This requires the imposition of uniform standards in addition to those provided by nature and family nurture.

  • Randall Stevens

    I’m going to be a nerdy faggot here but oh well. Rabbits are lagomorphs, not rodents. Other than that, great article.

  • Lao Zoot

    Damned well-written, sir! The best I’ve seen from you yet. This perfectly describes modern society for me. I’d only heard of r/K briefly and in passing, and had never seen it applied to socio-political concepts before this.
    If Sony had not emptied my bank account, I’d be leaving you a donation. As it stands, I will most definitely be doing so as soon as the coffers begin to fill back up. In lieu, I leave you this.

  • weenieger

    I’ve always thought of the left and right as the two sides of our nature as apes.
    The left is the non-violent, sexually loose, matriarchal bonobo, the right is the domineering, territorial, patriarchal chimp.
    I suppose these two aspects fit the r/K paradigm to an extent, but how do you account for the fact that leftists in reality are prone to having many fewer kids than conservative types are?

    • Christopher Cantwell

      As for liberals producing fewer children than conservatives, I’m not certain this is true. Yes, liberals have a tendency towards anti breeding behavior like birth control, abortion, and homosexuality. But firstly, this would not be something their evolutionary psychology had yet adapted to. They are simply avoiding consequences for their promiscuous behavior, as liberals and r-selected types are known to do. Still, when one takes into account the unrestrained and even subsidized breeding of welfare dependent individuals, single motherhood, etc… I suspect their breeding out numbers that of resource restrained conservatives.

      Even if it doesn’t, they have done everything in their power to shape the environment to favor r-selective traits, thus, they multiply regardless of their own individual breeding habits by triggering epigenetic responses from those born by k-selected parents into an r-selected environment.

      • Richard Chiu

        To put it another way, sexual strategy which accepts a very low pay-off in offspring which survive even to birth per sex act is still categorized as r, we start counting from the behavior, not from some arbitrary point in the child’s later development.

        If r strategists could actually sustain a stable society without eventually outbreeding (and converting, which is a real issue) the K strategists on which they depend for survival, then I would be all for r strategists. Utilitarianism and all that, you know.

        But not only is it better to be Socrates discontented than a pig contented, it is better in the specific sense that a society of highly intelligent humans is better able to secure future survival than is a society of pigs. Which is why humans have spread basically all over the planet, and only their parasites, pests, and pets have spread equally far.

  • Jeff Hamilton

    Ah, finally a libertarian thinker that has actually read/interacted with prime thinkers in evolutionary/social/moral psychology and has transcended their understanding of the problem. The current libertarian framing of the problem is completely and utterly destructive, with a dash of purposelessness. We must reach out to the selfish nature of both liberals and conservatives, their moral hindbrains, to unite them in a manner which will better both. We must display power ourselves and must be unafraid to bash failed elements of the current social order, such as our failed constitution, and be willing to improve upon them or scrap them altogether. I salute you Chris.

    • Libertymike

      Thus, implicit in your post and that of Mr. Cantwell, is the recognition that there can be a rational hatred of law enforcement.

  • freedomOfChange

    Interesting read. I am not sure that humans are biologically left or right, however we are all irrational, acting automatically most of the time. If one wants to promote rational thought you can remind people that racism is (most of the time) based on irrational thoughts and feelings.

  • Cherokee Threethreeg

    “Endless fields of clover: The final frontier.”
    -Captain Bunny

    “We choose to go to the endless fields of clover not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.”
    -Bugs F. Kennedy

    “Everything burns”
    -Supernova

  • Lauren Owl

    You need to understand what you are facing re: the marxist threat. Google cultural marxism frankfurt school critical theory.

    When you “argue” with marxists (or even worse, their suckered dupes), you will notice they use certain tricks. The delusion of moral superiority is one of them, PC sensitivity is another (like fighting them with one hand behind your back), white guilt, cis-sexism, racism, etc etc all the isms.. . Once you understand how cultural marxism fights, then shove it down their throat and point it out for the absurdity it is. They are like roaches, they are pretty defenseless once you point out the REAL intent behind what is being done.. and the fact they do it subversively and never honestly out in the open. Call them on their self righteous BS. So compassionate to bring in extremist refugees? Well then, you must be happy then to host them in YOUR OWN HOME, right my compassionate liberal? You want to disarm people? Well then, how can you claim making law abiding people defenceless victims? Do people have a duty to be victimized? Is THAT morally superior as you think.. or perhaps pretty evil, to say people have a duty to submit to rape, assault, or their own murder, without a fight?

    Don’t like guns? Well then work to repeal the 2nd Amendment, quit beating around the bush. But they don’t because they know they cannot overcome the legal hurdles to do so. They don’t like the status quo of individual rights, boo hoo! Burden is ON THEM to take away our rights, not just their feels or mockery of those they disagree with.

    Another big trick is to try and make YOU responsible for solving every problem of the world, rather the the matters of debate. Sorry kids, nope, world isn’t fair, never going to be fair, and I have no responsibility for that, I am surviving myself…

    • freedomOfChange

      It is easy to argue against bringing in refugees. At the moment the cost in sweden just to manage about 300-500.000 refugees the first year is the same as the UNHCR yealy cost for saving 60.000.000 refugees. The question the cultural marxist need to answer is: how many do you want to save? 500.000 or 60.000.000 refugees? Don’t you want to save as many as possible? What is your goal? Are you really a compassionate person or are you just pretending?

  • Coralyn Herenschrict

    r/K lenses hugely oversimplify human political/social/sexual behavior. They are as narrow, clumsy, and inadequate by themselves as treating man as purely rational. Unlike beasts whose nature is hardwired, a man can employ an r strategy for one problem, a K strategy for another, an XYZ strategy for another, solve a physics calculation, cry like a baby, and mediate in pursuit of spiritual enlightenment all in the same day. That is the target customer for libertarianism. A complex being using complex means to obtain complex ends.

    • freedomOfChange

      I wouldn’t say complex being. I would say a stupid and irrational being trying to find some truth without having any knowledge about how he or she works.

    • Richard Chiu

      The point being that there are certain life-style choices which are inherently incompatible with taking full personal responsibility for one’s own individual actions.

      Calling them XYZ or whatever doesn’t change that. People who have children and fail to take responsibility for them doom libertarianism to fail, unless libertarians accept the necessity of punishing that kind of behavior.

  • Coralyn Herenschrict

    This article answers its own question and doesn’t even realize it. The answer is appeal to the heart. Reason or force are not the two and only two ways to respond to people who enable, support, promote, and enact aggression.

    To paraphrase J. Paul Getty, if a thief tries to rob your armed group of 100, he has a problem; if 100 armed thieves try to rob you, you have a problem. Since we currently find ourselves in the latter situation, and that’s not changing anytime soon, we have a problem. Winning the hearts and minds of our misguided aggressors is one of the precious few viable options on the table at the moment. So let’s get serious about that.

    Progressives and cronyists did. And they transformed a U.S. laissez-faire paradise into a socialist morass in the span of 100 years using systematic marketing heavily grounded in animal emotions and self-interest. They figured out long ago, these things will trump reason. Are libertarians so lopsidedly left brain that they are incapable of waking up to the same realization and marketing their product the same way? Libertarian philosophy delivers profoundly better living and oceans more material wealth, satisfaction, and comfort to countless more people. Libertarianism can appeal to the elephant better than anything….if it is effectively sold to the elephant and his values. No one around here seems to have the faintest clue that that’s possible or how to do that.

    Ron Paul, the least likely person to make for a popular celebrity, ventured an awkward, Quixotic attempt at this and was more wildly successful than anyone could have imagined. Yet, other than he, libertarians haven’t seriously taken up marketing to animal spirits in any earnest, skilled, or systematic ways. So I think it’s exactly right that libertarians, “blame our lack of capacity for convincing others, and work to better ourselves.” Libertarians need to completely change how they are going about convincing from how Artistotle convinces to how Trump convinces.

    • Richard Chiu

      I don’t know that the U.S. was ever a laissez-faire paradise as such. There were serious stabs at real libertarianism, but the totalitarian impulse wasn’t ever fully excluded from political force at any time I can really identify.

      To really convert people to libertarianism (rather than some pleasant sounding nonsense by the same name), they need to become individually capable of real independence, and that requires hard-won life experience.

      • Coralyn Herenschrict

        I don’t know that the U.S. was ever a laissez-faire paradise as such.

        True. Comparatively speaking, of course.

        As for requiring experience, if we throw them in the swimming pool, they’ll learn to swim fast enough. They can learn the finer points of personal responsibility on their own time.

  • Benjamin Wood

    To completely ignore the role of technological innovation in this narrative leaves it woefully incomplete. From your post:

    “Simply put, the only way to bring about the abolition of the State apparatus is a violent overthrow of said apparatus, followed in short order by a culture of resistance preventing the establishment of such an institution in the future. The passive nature of the rodent class which occupies the libertarian space at present forbids such violence, and certainly lacks both the mental and physical capacity to take on the wolf in so much as a single non-democratic contest, much less a violent and protracted one.”

    Really? You don’t think that the innumerable technological developments which are set to decentralize and distribute economic power might undermine the State apparatus, significantly? If not completely?

    It didn’t take violence or even political activism to undermine the cab cartel, it took an app: Uber. All the major cities in the country could ban it, but if it had a foothold in one place….one spot on earth….odds are good the economic incentives would force the hands of those who banned it.

    It’s not going to take violence or even political activism to undermine the hotel cartel, it’ll take an app: AirBnB.

    Think about that! Those are two sets of regulatory framework/control that have existed for decades….closing in on a century. And they were wiped away within months. Yes, cab regulations are still written into law, as are codes for hotels…….but come on. They’re irrelevant! In five years, I’ll be able to stay in any of the hundreds of millions of spare bedrooms in the US for a fraction of what I’d have paid for a hotel room.

    Those are two very libertarian ideals of property ownership that were made manifest because technology facilitated the the direct connection of strangers in a trustworthy transaction…..and in doing so it completely circumvented the existing power structure. The lesson is that power structures don’t need to be overthrown, they simply need to be ignored and neglected. The Catholic Church still exists, today, but it no longer has any real political power. If Pope Francis executed a homosexual or adulterer or heretic in Vatican City, he would be universally vilified and subsequently imprisoned. The difference from five centuries ago? The majority of people are not willing to listen to him, to that extent. He only has power/influence in those areas people are willing to grant him power/influence.

    Uber and AirBnB are two clear, well-known examples of what I’m talking about, but this goes so far beyond either of them. The key words are decentralization and distribution: distributed manufacturing, distributed energy production, distributed entertainment, distributed transportation, etc. The first wave is in information that is easily digitized: audio, visual, and written media. We’ve already seen this, and continue to see its impact. Print media is completely dying, everywhere except the internet. Netflix is usurping cable. Filesharing destroyed corporate record-labels’ grip on what music people could access…and also made censorship impossible (remember the censorship debates of the 90’s?? Now a complete joke). And observe that we’re still seeing new ramifications every year, for something that really started 20 years ago. The first wave seemed inconsequential……now Netflix is going to destroy the Cable industry.

    As 3-d printing becomes more viable, the revolution moves to objects. You want to regulate shower-head designs? Good luck, when it’s a CAD file I can download online.

    If solar becomes cheap/efficient enough, the revolution moves to electrical generation (the master resource). If the blockchain succeeds, it moves to money, insurance, investments. And from there, to every financial transaction between consenting individuals that you can imagine. Mobile apps may largely accomplish this, with or without the blockchain….but it’d be even more awesome and decentralized with a distributed ledger.

    The political debate over gun rights is going to be irrelevant when I can laser-sinter one with a CAD file, in my garage. It will be like outlawing the sharing of MP3’s. We know how well the State did with that.

    The restoration of property rights won’t take place in the political sphere or be the consequence of violent revolution, it will be enabled by countless innovations that connect creators and producers and consumers, directly. Peer-to-peer, so to speak. As middle-men are replaced by automation and code in economic transactions, the ability of the State to intervene in those transactions diminishes dramatically. You can’t use leverage or threats of violence against open-source code and distributed networks. As software gets better and better, there won’t be central Pirate Bay servers to shut down….there won’t be a Ross Ulbricht to arrest…..there will be a distributed, redundant, faceless operating system for human exchange of every kind, and you won’t be able to shut it down.

    The Statists’ only hope would be to implement a completely totalitarian prison-state that monitors and controls every human interaction…..but the internet cat is so far out of the bag, this is hard to imagine. And again, their incentives are working against them. The Statists want the economic growth that things like AirBnB and Uber provide….many of them are eager to jump on such developments and claim their successes as their own. They don’t realize that the architecture of these innovations is going to enable many of us to simply opt out of the State.

    The technologies that will impact the State’s ability to levy taxes and control human life are innumerable. Seriously, there are too many things happening right now to count or keep track of, and they all build on one another and expedite the progress of the next innovation.

    Political revolutions in the West have followed economic revolutions, which have followed technological revolutions. Every single time. While in the short-term, things may look bleak, the overwhelming trend in the West over the last five centuries is one of decentralizing economic and political power. From monarchs, to feudal landowners, to the merchants, to the industrialist, each step has distributed power to a broader and broader number of persons. Average wealth and life expectancy has risen dramatically, with each step. The final revolution will bring the means of production to the individual and family unit….and political power will follow.

    the r/K hypothesis isn’t just rooted in genetic inheritance (although that’s part of the picture)…..a significant point in the hypothesis is that these gene sets and behaviors are activated by incentives and conditions in the world around us. Right now, the incentives are outrageously perverse. But as technology frees those of us who wish to be productive to shrug off the burden of Statism, those who have become dependent on the State and the producers it plunders will have no choice but to adapt and produce just enough to survive on….which, given technological advancement, may not ask very much of them, anyway. But the important point is that the K’s will no longer involuntarily suffer the existence of parasites. And the innovation and economic productivity that will emerge in a world where a K-selected person is free to compete to his or her heart’s content and reap the rewards of that competition will be staggering…..exponential…..endless.

    Then, of course, we get wiped out by Artificial Intelligence 🙂

    • Chris: “Simply put, the only way to bring about the abolition of the State apparatus is a violent overthrow of said apparatus…”

      Benjamin Wood has illustrated technology’s role and summed it up nicely with: “The lesson is that power structures don’t need to be overthrown, they simply need to be ignored and neglected.”

      In comments on other articles where Chris keep repeating his mantra about violent overthrow, I have pointed out the example of the NON-violent collapse of the Berlin Wall followed by USSR collapse and German re-unification. It was an excellent example of socialism running out of other people’s money. East Germany joined with semi-capitalistic West Germany and thrived. Russia had to learn about capitalism and has taken longer to recover. Yet BOTH fell back into the age-old superstition of government. What was lacking was a widespread education in liberty and the Non-Aggression Principle that Rothbard has emphasized repeatedly.

      • But is this truly what Mises called “acting man.” Or is it merely good prole, bad prole Orwellian economic theater. Those in the unseen are leaving the invisible market hands uncuffed now and again.

        Don’t you just get a sick feeling that Uber, Amazon, AirBnB, and SpaceX Mars Colonies aren’t really going to do it. That Google isn’t all that far removed from Goolag.

        In the East, there’s a destruction of womanhood that’s nearing completion. In the West, there’s a destruction of manhood that’s well on its way.

        Everywhere there’s a destruction of our means of adding value as individuals. Unless we build a FoxConn somewhere in the Catskills. They’ll control how wide or how narrow things like AirBnB are allowed to spread.

        Remember online poker. Left to prosper until one day DOJ New York goons took everyone’s money out of the bank, and called the Poker Companies crooks for not protecting their players money. Virtual freedom is nothing to scoff at, but it has different realities than meatspace freedom.

        Of course Chris is only part of the way right. Until he is wrong. That will always be the case in any individual’s writings. No man’s brain or even wordprocessor and file cabinet can contain all the needed wisdom to plot solutions to these inequalities of central versus individual power.

        But this is a damn fine article. And a good time read while telling us what to do about it, if only we have imaginations to read between the lines and plot our own courses actions and derivative or replacement works based on it.

        • Benjamin Wood

          First of all, I agree. It is a damn fine article, and as you put it: “No man’s brain or even wordprocessor and file cabinet can contain all the needed wisdom to plot solutions to these inequalities of central versus individual power.” Well said.

          But when I look at history, I see technological revolutions in the driver seat. Economic power follows those innovations. Political power usually follows the means of production. In that context, I see a tidal wave of technologies which put into the hands of individuals power that only nation-states and large corporations have held, previously. I think this is a really, really, really important theme to understand to have context for where we are and what’s coming, next.
          “Don’t you just get a sick feeling that Uber, Amazon, AirBnB, and SpaceX Mars Colonies aren’t really going to do it. That Google isn’t all that far removed from Goolag.”

          Yes, I do….eventually Uber will become the establishment that will need to be circumvented. They will inevitably try to use the State to prevent transportation services that don’t have background checks, or something or other.

          I think we would all agree that the ideal is a situation where anyone who has access to a vehicle can charge anyone else whatever they mutually agree is a fair price for transportation service. Uber may (read: “will”) eventually impede this ideal, despite getting us closer to it, today.

          But the barrier to entry to compete with Uber is coming up with good software and getting people to use it. I don’t need to build some massive infrastructure to compete with them…..I just need competitive code. And yes, I may be “banned” in New York or even the United States….but what about Manila? Mumbai? Lagos? Sao Paulo? Places where the State is much weaker and less competent in intervening in technological and personal matters…places where the black and gray markets are much larger than they are in the United States….in these places an ideal Uber competitor would flourish.

          “Everywhere there’s a destruction of our means of adding value as individuals. Unless we build a FoxConn somewhere in the Catskills. They’ll control how wide or how narrow things like AirBnB are allowed to spread.”

          I think you’re giving these bureaucrats way too much credit. These people work in the State for a reason: they’re not innovators. They want a steady paycheck and retirement. They’re dull. They are simply not going to be able to keep pace with the developments in the market. By the time they get their minds around AirBnB and Uber and think they’ve got a regulatory handle on that, there will be competitors for those apps that completely change the game, again. There will eventually be an open-source Uber on a distributed network that just connects drivers to riders. This open-source Uber won’t even charge a fee….it won’t even have employees. It’ll be an open-source project that achieves consensus the same way that the BTC blockchain does. There will still be majorities and minorities and rules and laws…..but the rules will be built into the architecture of the network and the software it runs.

          The final piece…and I think the most important…is the wealth this revolution is going to create. We are on the verge of a capital-creation episode that is going to make the industrial revolution look like a footnote, by comparison. There are multiple technologies that have the potential to save consumers trillions of dollars in the United States, and to distribute industries to individuals which themselves do trillions in revenue. The looming consequences of Central Bank intervention may give us our chance to really break free of the State in a way many of us never thought possible in our lifetimes. My greatest concern is inter-State war. If States don’t blow up the world in the next twenty years, the wealth that is created by these innovations is going to make the benefits the State claims to deliver seem irrelevant. Social Security, Welfare, Education, Defense….these things will be delivered in spades by innovation. Education? Free from the best universities in the world, online. Welfare? Your cost of living is about to drop substantially and you can 3-d print most of the things you need. Social Security? We’ll have p2p insurance for a fraction of current premiums and crowdfund resources for the deserving poor. Defense? Please….I don’t need cops when my home has security cameras with infrared that I can pull up on my phone, and automated Tasers that shoot intruders via my mobile command.

          We can engineer the applications that make the State unnecessary and irrelevant. I’m going back to school in the next couple years to study computer science, for this very reason. You want to diminish the police? Give people an application/security system that makes the average person realize police are unnecessary. Etc. We get too myopic and see all the bad news, but miss the great developments all around us. The looming financial crisis is about to greatly reduce faith in central governments and banks….this will be a massive opportunity for blockchain-based solutions to emerge, if they’re ready for primetime. I hope they are.

          • Richard Chiu

            Wealth, as you touch on in talking about how you’ll use technology to secure your property against less adept intruders, can be used to inflict harm as well as provide benefit.

            Where there is an economy of violence, there will be powerful preying on the weak. You can try to ensure that only the just become powerful, but if you merely wish it to be so because the means of power has changed then you will be disappointed.

    • Richard Chiu

      Technological advances do make revolution inevitable.

      They don’t necessarily make it any less violent. And while some technologies can’t feasibly be ‘uninvented’ by the violent revolutions they engender (like firearms), other technologies are a good bit more dependent on advanced infrastructure and of limited utility when society collapses (like smart-phones).

      We can work towards making peaceful revolution possible, but we can’t eliminate the inevitability of violent revolution when entrenched power interests refuse to relinquish their hold on society voluntarily. And, in the current cycle, we have failed to persuade the governments and their rent-seekers to give up in time. This revolution will not be a peaceful one.

      • Benjamin Wood

        I just think you’re dramatically overestimating their ability to control things. What is the State going to do? Shut down cell phone data or fiberoptic internet communication? If there’s anything that would spark an immediate revolution, that’s it.

        But even if they wanted to do this thing that game-theory would suggest they’d never attempt, there is so much work being done on distributed networks and encryption….it won’t be long before we can make ad hoc internet networks in local areas. Developments in LiFi networks may make sending signals through line-of-sight as efficient as sending them over fiber-optic cables. Etc. Etc.

        There are too many fronts advancing technologically for the State to successfully limit the ability of us to share data with whoever we want. There’s just too much happening. And with that digital information comes the ability to communicate and share increasingly tangible values with our fellow man. It cannot be stopped, outside of a world war that destroys much of modern society and centralizes control in a State apparatus.

        • Richard Chiu

          The coming economic collapse will shut down vast swatches of the information infrastructure on which a lot of our technology depends. The motives of the State one way or the other have nothing to do with it, the revolution itself will shut down the internet.

    • Coralyn Herenschrict

      +1 on the technological efforts to sidestep the state. But there is only so much sidestepping one can do when they control the physical world.

      Uber and AirBnB and Fantasy Sports Betting are grey-area businesses. Which means the state wrestles with how hard to come down on them and is inconsistent. These businesses spend vast sums in court, lobbying, public relations, and altering their business models in a constant struggle to keep from getting shut down.

      Don’t get me wrong, pushing the boundaries of what can be gotten away with is fantastic – that’s a culture of resistance. And offering ordinary people a tangible taste of the payouts free markets can deliver is exactly the right way to promote liberty. But make no mistake such strides in and of themselves are 100% vulnerable to being shut down at any time by the state enforcers.

      The minute something crosses over from the virtual world into the physical world, as things that people value must, the state is waiting there with its men with guns to impose its own ideas of property and permitted behaviors regardless of what the online world says. So technological progress that evades state control can only get so far.

  • Yeah, pretty much. It’s bad enough that humans are inherently irrational creatures. But the more immediate problem is that leftism is not a political philosophy in any normally-recognizable sense of the word. No, leftism is a fanatical utopian cult. Once you understand this, everything they do makes sense. I’m sure you’ve noticed this, but they argue like cult members. Their principles, even their logic, is whatever they need it to be in order to win the argument they’re engaged in at that exact moment. Five minutes later, they’ll turn around and use an exactly opposite argument if that’s what they need to do to win. Do you think I exaggerate? Then think of the response to the San Bernardino shootings. When they thought it was a white Christian conservative, they insisted that it was the fault of *all* white Christian conservatives, and of whiteness, Christianity, and conservatism as philosophies. As soon as the news was released that it was the work of Middle Eastern Muslims, they flipped 180 degrees – now it was not at all the fault of Middle Easterners as a people, or of Islam, and if you say that it is, then you’re an insane Nazi. In fact, it’s actually the fault of anyone who criticizes Middle Easterners or Islam, because their hate drove those poor Middle Eastern Muslims into a killing frenzy.

    Does this sound like a way that people who are interested in objectively and dispassionately engaging in a dialog aimed at determining the truth behave? Or do they sound more like crazy cult members? It’s time to come to grips with the fact that there is nothing to be gained from trying to be rational with irrational people. What has fifty years of trying to be reasonable with the leftist cult gotten mainstream conservatism?

    I’ll take a dictator or a monarch over having my country turned into one gigantic cult compound.

  • What about economic power. And lowering our ideals regarding “theft.”

    We could all get to work stealing millions of dollars worth of movies, music, books, and other media.

    And horde them in our redoubts for when the SHTF. And also to make a living and raise funds for our cause.

    This isn’t the highest moral ground, I’ll concede, but its a damn sight higher moral ground than pointing the guns of state at everyone to get your way.

    I’ve got 500MB hiqh quality cams of “Creed” “Mockingjay2” “Krampus” and “The Good Dinosaur” I could put on a 2GB flash drive and sell for $15 at the Home Depot next to the Mexicans.

    Do we want to only blog about being better than everyone else. Or shall we fill up a backpack with product and get busy slinging MP4 vids to everyone while on our way to true economic power and freedom.

    • Richard Chiu

      Um…shouldn’t we be planning to horde something which would actually have some practical use in the wake of an economic collapse? I’m not saying it can’t be information, but shouldn’t it be information that isn’t…junk?

  • Peter Wilkinson

    A couple points, 1 it is possible for people to act rationally, your self as an example. I don’t think concluding rationallity is fundamentally impossible “in a meaningful way” is a good way of looking at it. People have the capacity for rationallity, but it is convenient to choose to abandon it for selfish reasons (confirmation bias). I think when the environment allows for you to get away with bad reasoning it is easy to do it. Ie the good times lead to the bad times and the bad times lead to the good times. I think all people are wolves (by your definition). Competition to succeed ect. Right now we’re just starting to feel the effect of the entropy that our bad decisions have caused, and there is a struggle to preserve the status quo in different ways. Both directions are doomed, as the environment gets worse more desperate measures are taken (dictatorship ect). Eventually it will reach a point were we will have to throughout the entire system (revolution either peaceful or violent) peaceful revolutions are possible like ghandi for example. If you look at the “good” revolutions the leadership appealed to reason and justice. Vs the french revolution was about revenge. I guess what I’m saying is reason isn’t dead, but we may not be at the point were the environment forces people to think reasonably. I typed this on my phone so hopefully it makes sense.

  • Kalos Kagathos

    “We have two situations, mutually exclusive: Mankind surviving, and mankind extinct. With respect to morality, the second situation is a null class. An extinct breed has NO behavior, moral or otherwise. Since survival is the sine qua non, I now define ‘moral behavior’ as ‘behavior that tends toward survival.’ I won’t argue with philosophers or theologians who choose to use the word ‘moral’ to mean something else, but I do not think anyone can define ‘behavior that tends toward extinction’ as being ‘moral’ without stretching the word ‘moral’ all out of shape. ” — Robert Heinlein

    • Richard Chiu

      Keeping in mind that apocalyptic predictions of how the behavior of the other side will cause outright extinction is generally a discreditable and dishonest tactic, there are a few cases where you really are talking about a choice between life for some and death for all.

      But most people can’t be trusted to know the difference.

  • jtkennedy

    Chris,

    Has it ever been an improvement for a mature liberal mass franchise democracy to become a dictatorship or a monarchy?

    If you point is only that it’s inevitable, I don’t think that’s true either. The US is oldest such nation in the world. I don’t expect democracy to last forever here and I don’t want it to – it may get worse, but I see no reason why it can *only* get worse.

    • Has it ever been an improvement for a mature liberal mass franchise democracy to become a dictatorship or a monarchy?

      Yes. Just off the top of my head, within the last century: Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet stand out as obvious examples. I’m sure there are more.

  • Chief Wahoo

    You can only vote if you own property. That’s where I would start.

  • liberty lover

    Can’t be bothered to read all that tripe from a statist. The ultimate debate is between statists and non statists. You either reject the state in its entirety or embrace it with all its flaws. You can’t pick and choose what you want the government to do based on your sensitivities. As soon as you start doing that (Cantwell, Molyneux and Rockwell crowd) then you should join the Democrat, Republican crowd. Those of us who have rejected the state refuse to legitimize it in any way shape or form. Go ahead and call us ‘left libertarians’ if it makes you feel better.

    • lol, could have saved yourself a ton of time by simply saying that you’re a total faggot

    • Go back to your autistic la la dream land and you will feel much better. Be sure and tighten your PC intellectual suicide bomb vest along the way.

  • Finlaggan

    Excellent article! Probably the best thing I’ll read all day!

  • Chris, what you have re-discovered is the old conflict between so called minarchists and anarchists. The problem’s root cause is most people’s inability to think in the long term. It is only possible to organize society on the basis of existing prevailing ideas and beliefs. America has a heritage of limited government. That heritage has been under attack since the rise of “progressive” nationalism and “progressive” socialism. Ron Paul’s strategy was effective in educating people because the Constitution, with its professed purpose of limiting the power of government, is still there. The presentation of the strategic problem as a choice between autocracy and democracy is absurd. Autocracy is a crap shoot at first. If we are lucky we might find a “savior” to blast away the entrenched welfare state interests, but autocracy will always eventually result in the rule of a tyrant. The only system that can work in the long run is an oligarchy based on a meritocracy. We understand that free market capitalism is the best meritocracy. A revolution of rich and powerful Constitutionalists, a junta, is the only means that has any hope of tossing out the welfare state.

    • Trump is a possible first step in creating such a movement among the rich and powerful. The reason I believe that is because of Trump’s origin as a Barry Goldwater Republican. When the economic shit hits the fan Trump is our only chance of turning things in the right direction.

    • By “junta” what we actually mean is a kind of limited civil war. The military is induced to rebel against the civil authority. It that happens it will be better if it is done by Trump than by Hillary. In any case it is going to happen when the economy crashes.

  • BTW, if you read the Federalist Papers, you will see who the first “neo-reactionaries” were.

  • Burgermeister

    What libertarians need to understand is that liberty is an evolutionary strategy of the English, an extremely K-selected people. Thus, it’s entirely incompatible with R-selected populations.

  • DaveElectric .

    Criticisms:

    1)It is not true that libertarians have solved all the intellectual issues with libertarianism. For example, no two libertarians can explain why people ought to have rights for the same reasons. No two libertarians can explain why “liberty” is a value. No two libertarians can explain why private property is superior to socialist property for the same reasons. No two libertarians can explain why morality ought to be universal for the same reasons. What libertarians think are well-reasoned arguments are actually not as well-reasoned as they think they are.

    2)It is not true that humans inescapably locked in a survival mindset. Part of what makes a man a man is that he has to CHOOSE to make survival a value. He has to believe that he ought to live That is quite beyond being a mere slave to the reptilian brain.

    3)The rabbit/wolf dichotomy has nothing to do with human nature. The rightists are not “Wolves”. They are either sheep (people who follow the rules) or sheep dogs (people who enforce the rules).The leftists are not “rabbits”. They are more akin to mosquitos who suck on the blood of the sheep and sheep dogs.

    And furthermore to animalize groups of humans like this seems like an attempt to create moral relativism where there is no moral relativism. If the leftists are prey and the rightists are wolves then what reason do the rabbits have to bend to the will of the wolves? Do they not have a natural right to object to the will of the wolves? Do they not deserve a different standard of ethics than the wolves? Also, doesn’t treating rightists as akin to “wolves” reek of leftist sympathizing? There is NOTHING predatory about people on the right. There is nothing predatory about work. Nothing predatory about capitalism. Nothing predatory about success in the free market. It’s only leftists who think such things are somehow predatory. It’s leftists and authoritarians who like to conflate voluntary things with coercion; conflating rape with love-making. Rights are either sheep or sheep dogs reacting to injustices that happen to them. They spend 8-16 hrs a day working awhile the leftists spend 16 hrs a day trying to figure out how to steal from the people who work. This “Anonymous Conservative” has everything backwards just like all these other neo-reaction people.

    I fail to see the point of these metaphors other than that they might have some ulterior Social Darwinist motive that is meant to demoralize the people of good will and encourage some ruthless sociopathology.