I recently saw this article by 71 republic here, about how “ultra conservatism” is un-libertarian. Well that is categorically false. Social conservatism, defined by Hoppe, as personal responsibility, low time preferences, family authority, and un-hedonistic parasitcal behavior is the only socio-compatibile factor with anarcho-capitalism, i.e., the natural order. The worst part of the discombobulated article is this part:
“The mind of a human is one’s greatest ally but can also serve as the silent, unknown enemy. We think with our mind, and our decisions arise from there. Ultra-conservative “libertarians”, whether knowingly or not, want to control the minds of others. This form of tyranny is worse than both the state and the corporations combined, as they wish to change the course of an individual’s life that was already chosen by themselves. “
What in the world do you even mean? The state attempts to change our minds to leftist hedonist crap all the time, with their big government subsidies to public education, etc! Corporations attempt to do so, and even more so when they are under the state’s influence. See the CIA controlling Corporations here.
Another part I thought was absolute garbage was here:
“By influencing the morality and attempting to control the actions of a conscious, is one not engaging in tyranny?”
Um, I’m sorry to inform you, but that is not a definition of tyranny. That might be a left-libertarian definition of tyranny, but from the NAP, private property ethic, tyranny is when some body X coerces you into doing something, with you property and your body. Property owners are free to coerce on their own property.
The writer of the article, “James Sweet III”, seems to misunderstand libertarianism. He says:
“There is much more to libertarian socialism than what I just described, and I will admit that I have not read libertarian socialist literature. Yet, from what Noam Chomsky has said, it is rational to infer that the difference between a libertarian socialist and a right-wing libertarian is the enemy they see in society. A right-wing libertarian sees the state as the most corrupt institution that exists and should be restrained as much as possible in an attempt to minimize its influence in the lives of the individual. A libertarian socialist might agree with this but believes the state is not alone in its faults. A libertarian socialist, for the reason stated previously, believes that the 21st-century corporation is at fault for many problems as well and that they should not be spared from criticism. Yet, both libertarian socialists and right-wing libertarians want to reduce the power of the state, and they split when it comes to what they do once the state is reduced or abolished. Do they rely on corporations, or do they rely on voluntary, communal sharing of goods under a free and equal market that is unobstructed by the corruption of suits and ties?”
The fundamental difference between libertarians and non-libertarians(socialists anarcho-commies), is that libertarians recognize the Non-agression principle of people’s bodies and private properties. Anarcho-Communists belive in the supposed “voluntary” communism. Literally. They don’t believe in self-ownership or private property rights. They are not libertarian. They should be expelled out of civilization and out of the Libertarian Party. Simple.
Just because libertarians share some beliefs with anarchists, i.e., foreign policy, etc, that doesn’t mean libertarians = leftists, commies, animals.
By Hoppean Ancap
go to subreddit