A commenter asks if the rightwing populist in this video is a Libertardian.
Yeah he’s a Libertarian, but he’s the most libertarded of all the Libertardians.
I used to read Libertardian sites all the time. I have spent countless hours reading that stuff. Real Libertardians are 100% pro elite, pro top 1%, pro bankers, pro finance capital , all that. If you go to their sites, they never say one word against their wealthy and capitalist pals, not one word.
Their attitude towards the top 1% is that they should have the right to steal as much money as they can from all the rest of us, and if they do, all the power to em, and the Hell with the rest of us.
Those of us who got ripped off need to get off the dime to work harder to try to earn back some of the $ the rich stole from us. The problem with the state is only in that it tries somewhat to prevent the rich from robbing us even worse than they already do, or that they have Victim Restitution Funds (social programs) for after we got robbed.
So this guy is true LiberTARDian, that is, he doesn’t even understand that Libertardianism by its nature is hostile to all classes but the upper middle class and the rich. He thinks, like so many rightwing populists, that Libertardianism is just the ticket, the proper weapon for middle class White Americans in their class war with the elites who are robbing them blind. Yeah, some weapon. When the middle class aims it at those evil “elites,” it’s going to backfire and blow up right in their faces.
9 thoughts on “US Right Wing Populism Proposes Libertarianism: Bad Medicine”
What are you talking about, Robert?
He is a true American!
*(Sarcasm noted for the lesser informed)
On the contrary, Libertarianism is opposed to regulations that only benefit the already rich. They support large, publicly owned corporations that make products for the masses, not for the elite.
Remember, no proletariat ever devised any of the concepts of Marxian doctrine. It was only the wealthy, bourgeois like Marx and Engels that ever put pen to paper with a Socialist plan.
And it was the wealthy nobility who were the first to support regulation against the capitalists because they were threatened by the new money, the ability of a proletariat to move freely up the economic ladder.
Robert, what do you make of the writer Justin Raimondo, of Antiwar.com fame?
He is self-proclaimed libertarian, yet his views seem starkly at odds with many self-professed examples of this ideology.
Of course, I am looking at this from a foreign policy standpoint, and not one of domestic issue. By that logic, I like someone like Ron Paul. At least his views on what should be U.S involvement overseas. I cannot though, stand his wishes for society at home.
Paul is a libertarian as well, is he not?
Cyrus, as far as I’ve read everything with Raimondo seems in line with Libertarian ideology. I’m not sure what you might be referring to.
“Real Libertardians are 100% pro elite, pro top 1%, pro bankers, pro finance capital”
This isn’t exactly true, libertarians were against the bailout for example, and any sort of corporate subsidies in any instance. Of course, you do have a point, as they often say out of one corner of their mouth that we don’t have a true free market, and then praise the top 1% as people who have made it fair and square in the free market.
“Their attitude towards the top 1% is that they should have the right to steal as much money as they can from all the rest of us, and if they do, all the power to em, and the Hell with the rest of us.”
Well, they certainly don’t see it that way. They think anyone should be free to make as much money as they can on the market, and don’t consider that stealing, perhaps you do. Like I said, oftentimes there is a gap in theory and practice, whereby in practice they end up defending people who are basically the top 1% stealing from everyone else.
I’ve been involved in and around libertarian circles for some time and used to consider myself one. Nowadays I guess I still am a libertarian in many ways, but there are a lot of idiotic things about that ideology that I don’t want to be associated with in any way shape or form.
Basically they do have a religious mindset and think that their high priests/economists have proven that it is impossible under any circumstances for any government action to be preferable to the market. They also think that their natural rights high priests/”philosophers,” have proven it impossible for any form of government action to be moral, or for people to be happier when acting contrary to “natural rights,” (read: as a good libertarian), or for any non-market outcome to make people happier than a market one. I could go on and on, there’s of course the post on nerds at inmalafide, which describes a lot of the problems (libertarians are nerds with no sense of aesthetics). I also haven’t touched on any specific conspicuous problems like their unconcern with environmental, ethnic, racial etc. issues.
Basically I don’t object to you calling them libertardians, but I do think some of the top libertarian thinkers ought be exempted this label.
Here is a rather damning article today on Libertarianism by Paul Craig Roberts.
It was funny. Raimondo the libertarian wanted to invade Cuba to get the little Cuban boy back. Elie Gonzalez. OTOH, Chronicles Magazine’s antiwar tradcon Thomas Fleming said fatherly rights trumped so-called “freedom” and the father’s decision should be respected, criticising Raimondo’s preferred interventionism.
Ken, I was not aware of that, as I only started reading Raimondo in 2002. Would you happen to have a link to that article? Maybe the man’s views have have evolved over time. It would be interesting to see.
I was only able to find an a short piece by Raimondo written in 2000, where he seems to support the continued presence of Elian Gonzalez in the United States.