Casting Pearls Before Swine
I don’t want to make a habit out of answering silly invectives put forth by wayward sophists posing as “libertarian activists,” but it has come to my attention that some criticisms need to be laid to rest, so to speak. In other words, the so-called “infighting” of the Libertarian Party isn’t usually worth addressing, especially since so much of it is rooted in anti-intellectualism and emotionalism — problems that shouldn’t even exist in a movement looking to be taken seriously.
As some of my readers and friends know, I have entertained the thought of entering into politics on a local level. However, I’m beginning to regret my decision, but will continue to move forward in registering with the Libertarian Party, despite my aversion for it and its puerility. At least at this point, it’s not to blame for the welfare-warfare state America has become at the hands of the Republican and Democrat parties alike. Since showing my interest, I have been introduced (albeit, online) to several wonderful people heavily involved in the LP; and I do look forward to new friendships while welcoming new adversaries.
Whether or not this article curries favor with anyone matters very little to me in the full scope of things. I hate pandering, and I absolutely loathe populism — the use of vacuous pronouncements and agitprops to spur the interests of lowbrow constituents. There are leftists, who pretty much run the gamut, and then there are utilitarians and pragmatists who place a premium on their emotions and cannot think beyond personal delusions of revelry — both incredibly irrational and undeserving of attention. The latter are mere tartuffian blowhards who have gained tremendous headway in just about every corner of the liberty movement, making it difficult to lend credibility to the Libertarian Party at all — and by implication, libertarianism itself (despite obvious differences betwixt the two). They both decry just about every tenet of fundamental libertarianism, and they have yet to be expelled from the party.
So, here I am addressing their concerns, but it isn’t without good reason. Now that Hoppe’s name supersedes that of his predecessor, Murray Rothbard, it is apparently causing a panic in the upper echelons of the Libertarian Party. Especially since comprehending his views requires simple logic and humility — two attributes uncharacteristic to the Libertarian Party at large; ergo their hostility towards him and his views which are gaining traction and popularity among millennials. What I figure is that dyed-in-the-wool Austro-libertarians like me should at least attempt to present Hoppe, and his views, in a truthful manner, divorced from the bellyaching of callow detractors.
Perhaps what is most befuddling is the Libertarian Party’s resentment for its own history. The man who founded the party is oft ignored at best, and demeaned at worst. Rothbard wouldn’t even recognize the parody party that it is today. Granted, once he was ousted from having any meaningful influence, I’m sure he could see its future, but I doubt he could see how ridiculous it is now. When people are condemned for being intolerable of a repulsive exhibitionist dancing on stage at the national convention, it becomes rather evident that the Libertarian Party exists for no other purpose than its spoiler effect. It’s not an intellectual or an ideological contender; that much is certain. Its sole purpose at this juncture is to disrupt the status quo as in end in itself. Their most recent candidate, Gary-Ignoramus-Johnson can now join the ranks of Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot in that regard.
So as I begin this journey, I will remain a skeptic through-and-through. I will give little faith to political action and will continue to place my confidence in education and publicity; in intellect and salability; in truth and liberty. For, what good is politics, if the people you’re attempting to influence can’t even define “property,” “rights,” or “property rights”? It takes an immense amount of naïveté to place one’s faith in political activism and suffrage for effecting liberty at the hands of an uninformed — and often, misinformed — populace; yet, (L)ibertarians always seem to manage it. No, I will debate, discuss, read, and write as long as I can; and Lord willing, I will never compromise.
As for the indictments against “Covenant Communities” being slung around like feces in a chimp exhibit, I cannot for the life of me believe that such critics have read, from cover to cover, a single book by Hoppe. If so, I have to wonder how many crayons they ate along the way while coloring in the margins, but I digress. One would have to be an utter imbecile — or rather a fool, to be convinced of the arguments leveled against Hoppe’s views on the “libertarian social order.” Either that or they have a severe problem understanding or comprehending simple logic.
To even equate a completely voluntary community with a State is beyond disingenuous, and yet, this is the comparison being drawn by people in the Libertarian Party — by leftists and non-leftists alike. Many of these people groan against the so-called “social contract,” but yet have no grasp of what a contract even is, let alone how they work in a completely voluntary society and free market. They literally equate the “social contract” with the contract a Covenant Community would likely require for residency or citizenship — assuming that it’s even okay (in their minds) for a Covenant Community to have standards for residency or citizenship.
In fact, just a few days ago I witnessed a loudmouthed activist in the Libertarian Party (a self-professing “radical”) referring to Covenant Communities as nothing more than mere “exclusionary neo-feudal enclaves.” Apart from the word salad, I’d say that such a label is not at all problematic, considering the inferiority of prevailing views on governance, but somehow it’s supposed to be offensive — as though individuals have no right to associate, viz. exclude others, how they see fit while holding to their own agreed-upon jurisprudence and polity.
I’m sure that if it were up to these people and their followers, the libertarian social order would be nothing but a huge orgy, where no private property exists; or if it does exists, it’s limited to the point where discrimination is prohibited and people are compelled, in some way, to integrate in a manner these quasi community organizers see fit. By their standard, even an exclusively [insert adjective] “heterogeneous” community would have to compromise, should an adherent to a sort of differing “homogeneity” try to coexist and live out her beliefs. What if a wealthy black woman decided to buy up some land, then to subsequently form a community by renting out portions of the land to people with whom she’d prefer to associate (be it by race, culture, religion, etc.)? Do these Libertarian Party community organizers plan on going to war with her for offending their sensibilities?
These people, whether they realize it or not, want a state to ensure that no such communities exist. They either refuse to acknowledge the a priori reality of anarchistic associations, or they have zero understanding of socio-psychology, and work under the same misconceptions as their communist counterparts, who believe people are naturally good and will always instinctively organize [acceptable] heterogeneous communities. I’m sure that, in a free world without a state, there will be many communities that are heterogeneous and/or homogeneous in some way to some extent. There will be societies with different races, different religions, and some with the same race, and same religion. The question I have to ask is, what entity do these “liberlalatarians” (as Hoppe would say) propose exist to prevent such “undesirable” communities from forming? The only alternative to autonomous societies operating outside the control of one another is the existence of a state. Therefore, it is safe to say these people are either truly stupid, or charlatans posing as libertarians — statists.
Of course at this point it’s all hypothetical. America is nowhere near being a free society which means such a discussion over covenant communities, while beneficial as an intellectual exercise, is a bit premature and myopic. So, in closing, I will acknowledge the fuming allegations of puritanical libertarianism and welcome them with open arms. I am unabashedly resolute in the standards I live by.