Тег: Republic

Critique of the Libertarian Movement from the Right

Instead of a regular question, I received a rather detailed discourse, apparently with a suggestion to comment on it in some way.

If you are truly a libertarian or an anarcho-capitalist, then you must abandon the progressive “Overton window,” after which anarcho-capitalism becomes feudalism, and you become a reactionary. If we truly had anarcho-capitalism, we would have the death penalty for most crimes typical of the lower class, as well as serfdom or slavery for vagrants and the able-bodied poor, the death penalty for everything, the abolition of voting, at least for the poor and the stupid, serfdom or some similar way to disable people who are not inclined to work.

Most “libertarians,” since libertarianism is close to being illegal, have abandoned libertarianism. Now it is a completely dead doctrine. The great flaw of progressive “libertarianism” is egalitarianism. People are not equal, groups are not equal, reproductive roles are not equal.

Higher people should rule lower people; otherwise, lower people will create problems for each other and for their betters. The best people need to be freer. Lower people cannot handle freedom; they need supervision, discipline, and control. Lower people should be significantly less free. In order for people to have a reason for savings and investments, those who save and invest must possess greater political power compared to those who do not. Children need fathers. For children to have fathers, fathers must have power over their families. For the economy to function, property must be secure. For property to be secure, those who have it must have political power over those who do not.

The Enemy

I would say that some of the theses in this pamphlet coincide with the theses of Moscow republicanism according to Belkovich: people are not equal, the best people should have political power, and so on. But here the position is presented even more exaggeratedly.

I cannot say that the described society is unviable. What is described here is a very ordinary urban aristocratic republic, which existed in various forms from antiquity to the modern era. Such a society is sufficiently stable and historically died, if not from external conquest, then from the degeneration of the aristocracy. What can be done; political power is a poisoned fruit—you may pluck it to preserve your property, but you quickly discover that power is perfectly suited for preventing your competitors from getting rich, and even better, for plundering those under your control. The aristocratic little world closes in on itself, and in the best case, after a few generations, it finds itself tedious to everyone and needed by no one.

Is it possible in the modern world to maintain a society culturally similar to the one described, but without political power? This seems doubtful to me. At the very least, families relying on the dominance of the father of the house are struggling to survive in a world where there are many well-paid labor vacancies for women. On the other hand, if no one has political power (that is, the right to seize someone else’s property under the pretext of implementing socially important projects), then property ends up being relatively secure, and that is exactly what you need.

And what about the numerous rabble—lazy, unable to handle responsibility, living for the day? Let them hang out. At the current level of labor productivity, they will be quite able to afford working to a minimum, without straining themselves much, and it will be enough for them to live. Why worry about these downshifters? They won’t be able to cheat anyone or overthrow anyone. Well, they’ll quietly die from an overdose at fifty—why should you care? For a person without savings, it won’t be such a bad way out.

In short, in order to recreate the society you dream of for yourselves, you no longer need to harshly pressure the mindless mass, and they won’t pressure you either. You can breathe a sigh of relief.

So why on earth do you need these guys as serfs?

I have my own libertarian boxing club; can I publish our article about fighting corporations with you?

Daniil

From what I understand, the main point of the club is as follows: weapons are, of course, cool, but they are rarely managed to be used for self-defense, and safely—even more rarely. Meanwhile, for a libertarian, it is not only useful to know how to defend oneself in a wide variety of situations, but this skill, when applied, also advertises libertarian ideology in its own right.

The proposed article describes how, within the framework of private security production, the world does not revolve solely around private security companies—since this field is very strictly regulated by the state, and therefore such companies, firstly, provide their services at a disproportionately high cost, and secondly, the spectrum of services does not cover all types of demand.

Instead of private security companies, the revival of such a soft and humane means of reasoning with unfriendly counterparties as hiring a team of trained musclemen with powerful fists is proposed. Of course, in most cases, this cannot be seen as an alternative to hiring a professional security firm, but for organizing some libertarian events, such heavy artillery as professional security firms is not required. Yes, actually, hiring trained fighters to guard a hall is either excessive (usually, admonishment and the threat of calling the police are sufficient) or insufficient (if the aggressor is the police themselves).

On the other hand, it’s stylish. After all, a press wall provides no direct benefit either; one can take photos against a bare wall—but people still order them to be printed. Thus, proper ancap security should not be neglected for roughly the same reasons.

The article ends with a call to join the club (which presumably wants to mutate over time into such a fighting corporation) and to subscribe to the channel People of Good Will. I went to take a look at the channel, and there is a curious Code of the Person of Good Will. The Code is imbued with the values of republicanism, which Rodion Belkovich talks about so convincingly, and generally paints a rather attractive image. So read it; it is beneficial for the soul.

What does the esteemed Ancap-chan think about Mr. Belkovich’s latest performance?

In it, the speaker presented his views on political philosophy in a clear and coherent manner (and one must acknowledge their depth).

As I understand it, the main contradiction between the republic proposed by Mr. Belkovich and the market anarchism of the AES lies in the fact that the economists (a conventional term) are concerned with contemptible personal enrichment, while the stern knights of republicanism consider the public, rather than the private, to be the cornerstone of a true citizen’s life. How can balance be achieved?

Stepan Pavlov

There are practically no contradictions between republicanism and market anarchism, as long as both are implemented according to their principles. A republican recognizes the citizen’s right to res privata and emphasizes that he should have no concern for exactly how that citizen asserts themselves in their private sphere. An AnCap recognizes the freedom of association, that is, the right of people to res publica, and emphasizes that he should have no concern for exactly how they assert themselves in the public sphere.

Personal enrichment is not contemptible to a republican; it is simply that for him, the criterion for comparing people is gloria — the result of their activities for the sake of res publica. Political activity is not contemptible to an AnCap; it is simply that for him, the criterion for comparing people is how well they satisfy his own market demands.

As soon as the public sphere intrudes into the private, both the republican and the AnCap will rise up. Neither agreed to this. And both will demand respect for their rights.

Is it necessary to try to find some balance between these doctrines? It will be established naturally if you consistently defend the values of either republicanism or AnCap. Someone who is poor and incompetent will not earn much fame, which means they should invest more in the development of their private sphere to claim something in politics and thereby achieve gloria. Someone who is wealthy and market-successful will change the world around them, because entrepreneurial success is based on constant vigilance regarding how to better satisfy customers. This means they will bring innovations into the world that will also affect the public sphere, and that is immortal fame. After all, we revere Edison, and even Gates, although in the public sphere he is quite the leftist.