Every now and then I find an article or forum participant or youtube post or tv show/movie that mixes libertarianism with some version of 'white power' activism.
Sometimes they quote Mises for their 'right to discriminate', other times they try to defend an alleged version of national-socialism that is supposedly pro-market. Invariably, though, these 'characters', be they fictional or real, have a strong 'Christian' persuasion and even when they do not openly defend Hitler, they talk about revisionism of the Holocaust as some sort of groundbreaking truth that will some day be known to all.
I can't help but feel somewhat disturbed by these characters, specially when they are so knowledgeable and share with us such things as a general dislike of democracy (though, obviously not for the same reasons) and advocate private defense.
Any thoughts?
I've never encountered any libertarian white-supremacists. Many (if not most) users at Storm Front are very friendly towards the idea of "national socialism".
If anyone tries to equate libertarianism with white-supremacy, just remind them that white-supremacists have a wide-range of views about government, and the very few that are libertarian would be the harmless ones!
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
They tend to be charlatans. Although, a libertarian can argue for a homogeneous society based on voluntary association and freedom thereof. Some might say this is somehow immoral, but I fail to see how. The truth of the matter is the welfare state coupled with an open border policy has distorted the natural rates of immigration, much as the state distorts any and all natural rates (except its "natural" rate of expropriation.)
Well, with every movement, you're bound to attract some nutjobs. Just explain to them the nationalism is inconsistent with libertarianism.
shazam: Well, with every movement, you're bound to attract some nutjobs. Just explain to them the nationalism is inconsistent with libertarianism.
Apparently quite a few people around here seem to think it is compatible.
I remember reading a few months ago that Ron Paul recieved a 500 dollar cash donation from a white supremacist. Paul was pressured to give the money back but he refuesed stating that he did not in any way shape or form support their racist views but he was not going to give the money back simply because the man did not share his belief. If a communist whom I had never met before offered me 500 dollars to put towards my education, I would not give it back because his views are wrong. To do so would be insane. Unfortanetly, the media put the focus on the part that he accepted the dontation and refused to give it back, but did not cover his reasoning for it and did not allow him to clarify his position. The socialist media is what gives libertarians a bad name. They are afraid of what might happen if the government was not in every aspect of their lives, so they attack the people who believe in freedom. You do not hear about the donations going to Hilary from leftists extremists who belive in class war, but Ron Paul will be scrutinized in attempt to dirty his name and his ideas on freedom from the government.
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
Yes, his explaination was excellent! I'm still waiting for Obama's explaination of Fonda's endorsement.
Every candidate that remains is pure scum.
Anyone that tries to combine Libertarian politics with racism is a fool.
"A man chooses, a slave obeys."-Andrew Ryan.
Brainpolice: shazam: Well, with every movement, you're bound to attract some nutjobs. Just explain to them the nationalism is inconsistent with libertarianism. Apparently quite a few people around here seem to think it is compatible.
Yes quite a few like Ron Paul are nationalist and a lot of "anarchists" endorse him
I really don't see any problem with Ron Paul keeping the money. In the end, it is not about him supporting the views of his followers, but the other way around.
I too think any movement is bound to have some crazy followers, or cast-outs from other organizations or ideologies, specially when libertarianism is so welcoming. In a way, you may say it is its strength because it shares many of the views of both modern left and right and so may be appealing to a wide section of the political spectrum. At the same time, it is also its weakness, for there is a lot of people who don't know anything about libertarianism and are easily impressed by it being favored by such groups as 'white supremacists' or even radical Christians who hope to substitute the State with their new version of the Church.
Again, as a libertarian, I am obviously not for any form of 'thought-police' and simply have no argument against any individual's right to be a stupid mystic or racists in their own property, as long as they do not use force or threat thereof.
I was wondering how bad you guys thought it was and what impact do you think it will have, if any, on the future of libertarianism or how it is presented.
Cheers.
I think it's important to consider what the real agenda of most white nationalists really is. While they are perfectly free to hold and express such views and while they are perfectly free to engage in free disassociation, I somehow doubt that the agenda of most white nationalists and racists is truly based on any kind of principled voluntaryism. I suspect that many of them wish to use the state as means towards their ends. In my understanding, the main goal of such groups is forced segregation and protectionism.
Brainpolice: I suspect that many of them wish to use the state as means towards their ends. In my understanding, the main goal of such groups is forced segregation and protectionism
Totally Agree
RokonFan1988: Brainpolice: I suspect that many of them wish to use the state as means towards their ends. In my understanding, the main goal of such groups is forced segregation and protectionism Totally Agree
And there is a secret racist under every bed.
JonBostwick: RokonFan1988: Brainpolice: I suspect that many of them wish to use the state as means towards their ends. In my understanding, the main goal of such groups is forced segregation and protectionism Totally Agree And there is a secret racist under every bed.
No, I'm not being PC (hell, I'm a civil war revisionist and strong opponent of affirmative action). I'm talking about die-hard racists who have a rather obvious agenda of forced segregation. Not your average person, but what amounts to "fringe" groups. You shouldn't assume that all opposition to racism can be reduced to ignorant left-wing political correctness. There is such thing as racism and its hardcore proponents have an ugly agenda that in principle is by no means compatible with libertarianism.
On one hand, there is indeed an ignorant tendency among some people to see or hunt for racism everywhere where it really doesn't exist. On the other hand, it is just as ignorant to pretend that it doesn't exist at all and/or is entirely harmless. Forced segregation is no light matter. It was a highly anti-liberty institutional travesty in America for a long time.
Inquisitor: , a libertarian can argue for a homogeneous society based on voluntary association and freedom thereof. Some might say this is somehow immoral, but I fail to see how.
The truth of the matter is the welfare state coupled with an open border policy has distorted the natural rates of immigration,