Why Libertarianism Is Peacenik BullShit

YouTube is replete with libertarians waxing autistic about all types of incoherent non sense. The purpose of this article is to address two of such asinine libertarian concepts. Indeed, libertarianism takes many forms from anarchism—to—minarchism and some so called “liberty minded” folks may object to being labeled a “libertarian” and instead prefer to don the title “voluntaryist”. In full disclosure even I identified as a libertarian for a brief period back in 2012. I also live here in Keene N.H, home of the Free State Project and have partaken in various conversations with some ”celebertarian” types; and am thus able to offer what I believe to be a Death Knell criticism of their views. In this article I will be mainly addressing the libertarianism of people like Larken Rose, Adam Kokesh, and the youtuber “High Impact Flix”. I have studied their positions very thoroughly and can therefore be certain that I am not attacking a straw man.

Let us start with an examination of the “Principle of Self Ownership” since it seems to be the very bed rock from which these libertarians tend to argue.

Their starting point lies in the notion that every human being is “a self-owner”, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another’s person” (Rothbard, 1982).

To many freedom oriented individuals this sacrosanct axiom seems self evident and “obviously true”, but for those unfamiliar, I shall seek to elaborate by examining the reasoning behind such a principle.

According to most libertarians I have encountered there are only three possible conditions of ownership of the self (Rothbard, 1998):

  1. Each person owns a part of everyone else. (collectivism in theory)
  2. Some (groups of) people have ownership of (groups of) others completely (collectivism in practice)
  3. Each person has ownership of himself (individualism)
The Eye of Sauron in “Lord of the Rings.”

The first issue that immediately catches my critical eye is that there is a forth option the libertarian hasn’t bothered to consider, which is the “owner” and the “owned” don’t exist. I mean, “ownership” is either a legal fiction or it is expressing a subjective human expectation that only particular persons should have exclusive access to particular things and places. In reality, there is no such entities as the “owned” or the “owner”. There is only physical possession of things and occupation of land.

This is just a snap shot of one of thousands of discussions I’ve had with libertarians online. This was via YouTube comments on a Larken Rose video.

At this point, some libertarians will object by claiming that ownership and possession are synonymous, but if that were the case, then if I steal someone’s car do I own it? That would mean when the Government takes from them by force (taxation), that the government now “owns” the fruits of their labor. But this can’t work, because as almost any libertarian will tell you taxes = theft. The bottom line is that ownership isn’t merely considered possession, but “rightful possession” and what is considered “rightful” is completely subjective. Some libertarians whom I have discoursed with have claimed that if I didn’t own myself, I wouldn’t be able to move my lips or type these words; but my response is that I can perform said actions because I am a self.

This is from yet another one of my YouTube comment discussions with a Larken Rose fan boy. Note he commits an is ought fallacy by trying to deduce an ought (a moral right) from the fact of physical possession and control.

Also, ownership is necessarily a normative concept. It entails that others ought not take x without the owner’s consent, so it cannot merely be about some physical fact of possession and occupation.

Some libertarians have argued that I have a “natural right” to exclusive control over myself and the fruits of my labor due to the fact I control myself. But this is, an is ought fallacy. One cannot logically deduce an ought (ought not initiate force) from descriptive facts (jurisdictions over one’s body) about human nature.

Then of course, there is a criticism that highlights the rather comical infantile dualism the Self-Ownership Principle seems to imply. To own something necessarily implies a dichotomy: there is the “owner” and the “owned”. But even if ownership were some real phenomena in the universe, I cannot own myself. I am this “self”. I don’t own an arm, I am this arm. I don’t own my body, I am this body. See that? Most people would have written “I am my body”. Due to the inherent dualism of language, we tend to carve reality into fiticious divisions that aren’t truly there, which is fine, as long as we don’t take said divisions too seriously.

Now, if the Principle of Self Ownership doesn’t exist, does this mean that others have a right to rule me? To push me around? To take the things I possess? Does this make me a slave? No. “Rights”, and “ownership” do not exist, which means that the “right to rule” (authority) is also a fiction. No one has the “right” to initiate force, but they might have the ability. There is a difference. There are no rights, only might.

The next principle I’d like to examine is the Non Aggression Principle. The Non Aggression Principle or NAP is another sacrosanct concept libertarians rarely question. Its “truth” value is just taken for granted. But this principle taken on its own isn’t true or false. It is merely a command. “Thou shalt not initiate force” is neither true or false because it isn’t even attempting to refer to in-the-world properties. The statement “You forgot to turn off the oven before you left the apartment” can be true or false. It is either describing some real physical state of affairs or it isn’t. It has what we philosophers call “truth aptness”. The NAP on the other hand, is more like “Shut the door!”. Is it true? No, it is just expressing a desire for someone to perform a certain action. Commands are neither true or false and therefore “Don’t initiate force” is neither true or false.

Now suppose I said “If you don’t want others to initiate force against you, then you ought not initiate force against them”? Well, now the “If clause” has made the NAP a general truth, because the If clause (the subjective goal) has given it a true or false condition, but there is no moral obligation for me to follow it (Moral obligations don’t exist). This particular usage of the NAP has made it nothing more than a toothless suggestion, a hypothetical imperative. But what if initiating force is conducive to my goals? Did the Vikings not gain enormous power, wealth, and fame via the initiation of force? Didn’t Napoléon Bonaparte? How about Genghis Khan who was the founder and first Great Khan of the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history? If I want to perform an act of aggression against a member of my out group, and I can do so with impunity, why shouldn’t I? The NAP when treated as some kind of absolute or objective moral truth, is really just another moralism used to control and influence the behavior of others. It is nothing more than one more subjective slave morality!

The brutal reality of the human situation is that there can be no ought or ought not independent of something one values, or a consequence one wishes to avoid. Indeed! The Non Aggression Principle is subjective non binding peacenik hippy-dippy-bullshit!

Throughout the history of mankind countless violent struggles have emerged over finite life sustaining resources, and over ideology and power. Human primates are not interchangeable individuals and tribalistic aggression is genetically hard wired into the very structure of our primitive monkey brains. Any notion of transcendending our genetic propensities is a phantasmagoric pipe dream.

Libertarians will never get enough people to adopt their subjective ideals and values. It simply isn’t in the power Interest of most people to do so.

“Somebody needs to pay for alllllll my children!”

Much of humanity consists of parasitic organisms whose very lives are propped up via the initiation of violence (Government wealth redistribution, taxation, welfare programs etc). They (Parasites) will never give up Government and Government will never let you give up Government.

Ancapistan is a fanciful delusion autistically confabulated by intellectual infants who fail to grasp the brutal immutable realities of human nature. Voluntaryism is the product of halfwitted naïveté! No! We can’t just “all get along”. If human history and nature has taught us anything, it has taught us that life is will to power!

7 thoughts on “Why Libertarianism Is Peacenik BullShit

  1. Yes, very good.

    “Libertarians will never get enough people to adopt their subjective ideals and values. It simply isn’t in the power Interest of most people to do so.”

    Here is also the true heart of the matter in my view. I point this out in my work as well. Libertarians have this “moral compass” or believe in some metaphysical moral phantom which seems to tell them “one ought not initiate force.” Having a (subjective) moral valuation such as the belief in property rights but without the will to enact or initiate force to bring about such a society where “rights are respected…..is pointless. It seems all opponents of libertarianism run roughshod over them because they (the enemies of “liberty”) are very much willing to initiate force and are open about it. A belief in “liberty” but no will to bring about a society where they can live by the principles of liberty seems to render that belief completely impotent.

    The ultimate thing is, liberty is not a universal value. Nor is non-aggression. I also once called myself a libertarian. On a deep level I will always admire the tenets of liberty. But it is merely based on reciprocation. I’ve come to realize that when libertarian principles or a live and let live idea of non-aggression are extended to those who wish to impose their will on others then the enemies of liberty will use that very liberty, ironically, to destroy said “liberty.” The thing is, liberty itself is a spook, a phantom. There is no “right” and there are no “inherent rights” except those by which one can assert for themselves by using power, force, and Might. In order to win, the NAP must be ditched. As Redbeard said:

    “No man has (or ever had) any inherent right to the use of the earth, nor to personal independence, nor to property, nor to wives, nor to liberty of speech, nor to freedom of thought, nor to anything except he can (by himself or in conjunction with his allies) assert his “rights” by Power. What are (in popular parlance) called “rights” are really “spoil”- the prerogatives of formerly exerted Might. But a “right” lapses immediately, when those who are enjoying it become incapable of further maintaining it. Consequently, all “rights” are as transient as morning rainbows, international treaties or clauses in a temporary armistice. They may be abrogated at any moment by any one of the contracting parties holding the necessary power. Broadly speaking, therefore, Might is incarnated Right, and rights are metamorphosed mights. Power and justice are synonyms, for Might is mighty and does prevail. They who possess indisputable Might (be they one, ten, or ten million) may and do proclaim the Right…..Everyone who would be free must show his power. Human rights and wrongs are not determined by justice, but by Might. Disguise it as you may, the naked sword is still king-maker and king braker, as of yore. All other theories are lies and lures. Therefore! If you would conquer wealth and honor, power, and fame you must be practical, grim, cool, and merciless. You must ride to success over the deaths of your foemen. Their defeat is your strength. Their downfall is your uplifting. Only the powerful can be free, and power is non-moral….Freedom cannot be granted, it must be taken.”

    By force all things that exist are evolved, maintained and perpetuated. Force aggregates and separates the atoms that go to make up this cosmic universe of mind and matter. It integrates them into forms, organic, and inorganic. It disintegrates them again and again. It builds up and pulls down without the slightest respect to man’s wishes or desires. It theorizes, creates, constructs, annihilates, attacks and repels. It is literally in all, through all and over all.”

    In order to achieve, one must speak the language of force.

  2. Also, libertarians and capitalists simply lack the conviction of their beliefs in the sense that they come across to me as…..cowards. Just like conservatives do. There are some prominent libertarians on YouTube, and every time I hear them speak it sounds like they are fucking BEGGING others to let them be free, and they try too hard to show there they accept everywhere. Freedom can’t be granted, it must be taken. Anyone who opposes you, simply tell the to fuck off. Who is really a more dangerous foe? One who says “live and let live”and “there is room for everybody” or someone who wishes or silence or eradicate those that oppose them? The answer is obvious. To win, one needs to use the same exact tactics left wing moral totalitarians use.

    “Whatever weapon your Enemy possesses, must be duplicated or improved upon by you. If moral scruples and fear of ‘what the world will say,’ prevents you from doing this, then you were born to subordination and you had better surrender, for you can never hope to vanquish. You must be born again.” “Over an open grave” ever lies the road to success. In “the world’s broad field of battle,” every man is a combatant, and to be a successful combatant, he must not only be calculating, cool-headed and brave, but possessed of merciless strategy, a stout heart, a strong arm, and quiet indomitable determination.”- Ragnar Redbeard

  3. Other than the pathetic bullshit liber-turd-ianism has to offer it certainly isn’t a “non-aggressive” idealism”, rather, it practices something called a passive-aggressive approach upon which they carry on their motives (such as protests and demonstrations by breaking police barrier and forcing their way into their desired target).

  4. “Granted, libertarians aren’t anti-self-defense, but there seems to be a denial by libertarians of the sociopolitical reality of the requirement of force to enact self-preservation. Their much cherished but inherently unrealistic “non-aggression principle” or NAP is self-defeating, baseless, and counterproductive. It states that “one ought not to initiate force.” There is simply no objective moral basis for such a command, nor is there any universally binding obligation to follow it. The libertarian desire to take the “moral high ground” has caused those willing to speak and act upon the language of force to constantly and consistently dominate them in policy, rhetoric, body, spirit, and mind. Life simply doesn’t survive without the initiation of force. To say that “initiating force is evil” is just a subjective value preference, an expression of emotion, attitude, or a mere misapprehension. Power is the very basis of life and if one is to achieve power of any kind, the use of initiatory force is ultimately inevitable, unavoidable, and natural. Humans exploit, conquer, subdue, and kill one another not just for survival purposes, but for power (not that it ought to be or ought not to be this way, it’s simply realpolitik). For when these libertarians adopt the mistaken belief of “initiating force is evil” they allow their enemies to gain control over them because their enemies are willing to use force, whereas libertarians naively believe they can convince others that “initiating force is evil” through pacifistic means by quoting from inconsequential, impotent, and pointless tracts on economics written by pedantically idealistic “capitalists.” An anarcho-capitalist form of libertarianism accomplishes very little in an empirical sense, for the only thing these kinds of libertarians achieve with their naive belief in a free market is granting their ideological enemies the “freedom” to manufacture the very rope that will be used by these same enemies to hang them with; the same rope many libertarians seem to gladly and willingly pay for because they think they are sticking to “principles” of a free market. These “principles” become completely impotent if one is not willing to use whatever means necessary to bring about a society in which one can live by those principles. True liberty requires vigilance, mercilessness, ravishing grimness, and even a sadistic and sinister disdain of those who oppose one’s very existence, not capitulation to moralistic illusions, phantoms, and “principles.” It is profoundly disingenuous to think that a movement can take power without the initiation of force, for liberty has never been won except by deeds of war. It is the very prescription of “you ought to be a compassionate person” that causes conservatism and libertarianism in their modest forms to fail. One must learn to remove all compassion for enemies who want him dead or suffering if one wishes to advance his power. The truth about this existence is that force and rhetoric often overpower reasoned argument. Those who value liberty must heed the words of Ragnar Redbeard:

    By force all things that exist are evolved, maintained and perpetuated. Force aggregates and separates the atoms that go to make up this cosmic universe of mind and matter. It integrates them into forms, organic, and inorganic. It disintegrates them again and again. It builds up and pulls down without the slightest respect to man’s wishes or desires. It theorizes, creates, constructs, annihilates, attacks and repels. It is literally in all, through all and over all…..Despotism, if it is to be overthrown, must be fought with its own weapons, and the vilest of Despotisms are ever founded upon Majority Votes. Everyone who would be free must show his power. Unalterable remains the basis of all earthly greatness. He who exalteth himself shall be exalted, and he who humbleth himself shall be righteously trodden beneath the hoofs of the herd. Human rights and wrongs are not determined by Justice, but by Might. Disguise it as you may, the naked sword is still king-maker and king-breaker, as of yore. All other theories are lies and lures.”- Legion Miasmus, “The Power-Nihilist Proclamation: A Nihilistic Luciferian Philosophy of Power

Leave a Reply to James T. Stillwell III Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *