Alt Left: Libertarianism and the Alt Left: Prospects for an Alliance?

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: Peronismo definitely won’t fly in Libertarian circles. Argentina is used as a case study for a failed nationalized protectionist economy.

That’s probably not even true. They did great during the Peron years.

I think that the Trump years in general and this COVID-19 response in particular, both of which have been characterized by neoliberal or Libertarian policy and a Libertarian response to a crisis, respectively, has proven the abject failure of the neoliberal or Libertarian model. As if it had not been proven failed by the 2008 crash, which was caused wholly by this model.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: To unify all the nomadic tribes of the Alternative Steppe, three things are need. First, a rejection of central economic planning would have to be declared by right and left wingers. Second, constitutional or legislative limitations on the power of government to regulate. Essentially, castrate the FDA, FCC, FAA etc.* and legalize drugs

I absolutely will not go for either of those. Central planning is working great in China. Even South Korea, Japan, and Germany engage in central planning.

And we will never go along with gutting regulations. Alt Leftists are regulators. We are really Big Government types in a lot of ways.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: And third, a solution to the immigration problem.

There is no solution to this problem.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: The social-economic model, even if never explicitly stated as such, would be capitalism for corporations, socialism for individuals, and tyranny at the border, which is the inverse of what we have now. Warren Buffett agrees.

It’s the capitalism for corporations part that we are going to object to. That’s the whole problem right there.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: The Democrats will stay hopelessly in shambles for the next few elections until minority GDP and population both over take that of whites.

I wouldn’t count on that if I were you.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: Deregulation is hard for leftists to accept because of the strong tendency to falsely conflate wealth redistribution with government regulation.

It is in fact that only thing that redistributes income at all. Absent that you just have never-ending growth of inequality until you pretty much have feudalism. Neoliberalism (or Libertarian economics) has failed everywhere it’s been tried. It’s only success stories are when it’s mixed with socialism. Most of the world rejects neoliberal economics. The US is a holdout. There aren’t many others.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: I suggest aptitude AND loyalty testing for immigrants to keep the stupids or anti-westerns out.

That’s fine.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: No explicit racism, but it would effectively bring in only Christian Caucasians from Europe, Africa and the Middle-East, liberal East Asians and light-skinned Hispanics.

We would object to this part. Of course we want mostly high-quality immigrants, but they don’t have to be any particular race. High-quality immigrants of any race should be just fine.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: Currently, strong regulation of consumer goods & services exists because, ex post fact, individuals can’t afford to sue companies for the damages their products may have caused. As IQ’s, automation, access to on-line information, and personal income increase worldwide, people could rely less on byzantine jurisprudence.

I don’t understand any of this.

CLAVDIVS AMERICANVS: But as I see the tsunami of technology and globalization approaching to totally demolish the justification for our current system, I can’t help but take preparations for the utopia. We must agree on which anarchist utopia to usher in, lest our system turn into a Blade Runner dystopia.

The future will not be any type of anarchism. In fact the future will see a greater role for the state.

7 thoughts on “Alt Left: Libertarianism and the Alt Left: Prospects for an Alliance?”

  1. Yeah, capitalism can’t survive natural or man-made disasters. It only works when things are “normie”. However, given the vicious world climate now, there’s no way we can escape what rightwingers call the police state or nanny state.

    Anyhow, I take it the US and much of the world is cursed. In fact, the “Roman Peace” we had after World War II was a rare luxury maybe.

  2. Thanks for the long form response, Robert. I’m sorry to hear about your crazy relative. I knew a manic-depressive once whose shrink said it was okay to get off his meds. One manic episode and a million dollars later… I digress. Here are my thoughts:

    (1) Peronismo
    Whether it’s true or not doesn’t matter. Libertarians consider it an abject failure.

    (2) Government regulation
    Let’s leave this alone for now since we won’t see eye to eye.

    (3) Distinction between regulation and wealth redistribution
    You can have a welfare state that taxes corporation without directing their operations or curtailing their actives. Similar to the current Scandinavian model, albeit, more hands-off. Whether the Left wants this or not is a different story.

    (4) Immigration
    Aptitude and loyalty screening would render the immigrant pool mostly Christian, Caucasian and East Asian. Of course any brown or black person who makes the cut would be allowed in. In fact, darkies who look up to Western culture can be some of the most staunch defenders of it, and all but Nordicists in name. I’ve meet a few.

    (5) Democratization of information
    The Flynn effect hasn’t stopped everywhere yet. People can make smarter choices based on the increasing literacy, education, and free online information. Social media shaming and bad Yelp-style reviews can take bad products off the shelf or force companies to improve them far FASTER than the FDA or FTC can.

    Artificial intelligence will make modeling and simulation of product and drug behavior faster and cheaper. Automation makes it cheaper for companies to retool production lines. Part of the reason, companies continue to push bad shit is because once the R&D and production & distribution logistics has been put into place, it’s very expensive to shift course. It’s cheaper to get sued and fined but that will change with technology.

    Specific regulations and laws about what can or can’t be sold are needed because it makes the legal process affordable. The average person cannot sustain a trial where a general accusation of malpractice, bad intent, or fraud is made against a company. Establishing state or nation-wide precedent is resource intensive. Only companies can do this to each other, and they rarely do so because it’s suicidal. If the FDA or FTC has prefabricated grievances, it makes it cheaper for individual or class action lawsuits to happen.

    As people get richer and smarter, and third-party interest groups have access to ever-increasing computational power and AI that can easily, quickly, and cheaply generate models that demonstrate in court that a product or service is directly linked to some negative outcome, preemptive regulations will be obviated.

    (5) Utopia
    I am not an anarchist but I am an optimist. I am a pragmatic Republican-voting Libertarian. I completely expect a police-style state in the near future. But I am also a transhumanist who believes that in the not-so-distant future, thanks to biotechnology, people will have 200+ average IQs, 100+ year lifespans and very little need for government as we know it. I’ll expand on this in a second reply.

    @Jason, The POST BELLVM PAX AMERICANA, was really just nobody having the capability to fight. Commentators have pointed out that in high-entropy periods there is physical peace and only ideological war. As soon as nations build up industry and infrastructure — a low-entropy state — there is actual war. China is not physically capable of war with the West or Japan yet.

    1. CLAVDIVS, you can’t argue in favor of Libertarianism here. You just can’t. We don’t allow it. So I don’t want any debates where I have to argue against Libertarianism or questions along the lines of would I support this or that Libertarian policy. Other than the part about laws and cops and the carceral system, I’m against 100% of it. Here you are arguing more or less, “Hey Libertarianism may not work now, but in the future when we have all this AI and really fast computers, it will work great and we will finally be able to dismantle government and implement Libertarianism. I don’t feel like waiting around for the future when Libertarianism is finally going to work. I’m talking about now. I know you are a Libertarian, but I just don’t feel like discussing that issue on this site other than to argue against it. Sorry about this but this is policy.

      Thanks.

      P.S. I am very happy that you are here. You really liven this place up. You’re real smart too.

      1. No worries. Your house is your house. You’re right that my general argument is that future technological advancement will lead to a libertarian or some anarchist-like society. Which is why I sympathize with many Alt Left and Right groups because what about the present? I’m a near term pessimist with a long term optimistic expectation. You may even call me Christian-minded; armageddon tomorrow, eternal Heaven afterwards.

        1. Furthermore, Libertarianism is great for economic research for the sake of figuring out the optimal amount of government intervention. But most Libtardians or Tea Partyists don’t have economics degrees. Current Libertarian movements, much like the Cultural Left, are not viable political platforms because they lack a functioning religious or moral system.

          Libertarians do act religious, however, in so far as they believe that arriving at the conclusion of non-interventionism is the highest state of mind attainable. Then, without properly explaining this transcendence to others, they want Republicans to legislate in a Libertarian state and have the rest of the country overnight accept this new system without the people having gone through the internal conversion to non-interventionism.

          The CultLeft is similar. To them, it’s self-evident that race and gender are fake, and menopausal fat bitches are just as hot as 18 year-old skinny ones. “Proof is for fascists!” Although the CultLeft does have some sort of moral system, hence it’s wider appeal.

          When other people listen to Libertarians, they can’t help but ridicule them; a strange Hari Krishna sect with gold bullion in their pockets that refuses to convert people. Others should just know how great Ayn Rand was. It’s self-evident!

          Libertarian movements correctly focus on one emergent aspect of human nature: the chaotic systems of society and the economy. And that these chaotic systems which we don’t understand at all shouldn’t be fucked with. Fair enough, I, a believer, would say. But what about individuals? Libertarian movements don’t provide the spiritual manna individuals need to keep going day to day.

          Most people are pussies who don’t want to stare the death-question in the face and live their finite lives according to the answer. They find it easier to be busybodies, self-righteous moralizers, careerists, or simply emotionally dependent on personal relationships to help them forget that they will die one day.

          Most people want to get involved, do something, make the world a better place, get rich, marry up, and fuck everyone and everything. Good religions go to great lengths to address these needs. People need weekly service to be reminded that they are mortal and that there are bigger concerns besides keeping up with the Joneses.

          Democracy, Socialism, and Communism do cater to this in some way, be it through voting or joining the proletarian dictatorship . All the extant political systems allow for the people, directly or indirectly, to get involved. They don’t address mortality directly but provide a civic mechanism as an interactive outlet to ease people’s existential dread. Even the North Korean dictatorship is nominally for the people. It preaches how the State is concentrating and focusing citizens’ individual contributions.

          People are such petty faggots that they even talk about the design of their state drivers license or passports with undue pride. Well, according to Libertarians, state-issued IDs are immoral, so we can’t have that.

          Normies: “Well then. What can we have, O gubernatorial ascetics?”

          The Libs: “Nothing. You can’t have anything that is inter-individual or of a collective social effort. If you or your shareholders didn’t make it yourselves, without help from an amorphous social entity, it doesn’t count and you’re just a damn freeloader. Now leave us alone!”

          I contend consciously with the death-question every day. But I’m an exceptional case. It’s unreasonable to expect people to flock to movements that don’t provide the bromides.

          Our current political scientists, being CultLeft faggots, frame political and economic systems entirely in self-referential terms: politics and economics because politics and economics. Duh! There is no existentialism, theology, psychology, biology, or praxis involved in the analysis. Of course, this wasn’t the case historically. There is some growing body of research that links psychology to political affiliation, but it’s nascent and not psychoanalytic enough.

          Probably for related reasons and a lack of these analyses where they ought to be, you see them pop up in Literary Criticism where they don’t really belong. The CultLeft tries to have a moral system, though it fails at conjuring up anything even remotely coherent.

          To be fair, there are some great Libertarian thinkers, but these are just a handful of overly-educated individuals. Well that’s all I have to say on Libertarians then.

        2. A corollary. Last one, I promise.

          In summary, Libertarianism doesn’t provide a higher purpose. The Objectivism of Ayn Rand, an atheist, relegates higher purpose to individual responsibility, something which I, a monotheist, can agree with under certain qualifications.

          When Rand recounted her precocious childhood in a televised interview, she claimed that she wrote her first novel in elementary school. She probably had an IQ of around 160. Individualism is too much of a burden for most. The IQ requirements are very, very high, 99th percentile or higher if I am to posit a number.

          Rand didn’t need a prefabricated concept of God because she could fabricate her own and properly integrate her psyche with her own mortality and the trappings of the world around her.

          The cardinality (size) of the set of gods for atheism and monotheism are 0 and 1, respectively. But the number of item descriptors is the same: 1.

          Atheism
          Number of gods: 0, item descriptors: 1, e.g. Nothing

          Monotheism
          Number of gods: 1, item descriptors: 1, e.g. God

          Ditheism
          Number of gods: 2, item descriptors: 2, e.g. Sun and Moon

          Hellenic Polytheism
          Number of gods: 12 , item descriptors: 12, e.g. Zeus, Hera, Poseidon and the rest of the Pantheon

          Our current secular academic institutions focus unnecessarily on cardinality of their theist set. But what matters is the number of item descriptors because both they and monotheists use the same mental mechanism for making sense of the universe. Everything in existence comes from exactly one and one only thing outside of existence: nothing/God.

          Rand and many Libertarians also make this same mistake and fail to realize that if an individual is too stupid to postulate their own ontological one-item-descriptor, then religion or society will need to supply one.

          The Bible’s monotheism is an innovation in social technology. The Bible barely talks about homosexuals, but it goes on and on about how jealous God is and how stupid it is waste precious resources on idols in a pre-industrial flood-prone (Bible joke :-P) society with a life expectancy of 25 years.

          Today’s thinkers arrogantly divorce themselves from this intellectual lineage – the condensing of multiple God-causes into a singular God-cause. They think they are so clever. They’re all fucking faggots. Newsflash, a bunch of sack-cloth wearing Bronze-Age Hebrews discovered this 3,000 years ago. You faggoty faggot faggots. Drink that soy milk so you look like unmuscled stick figures. You bundle of sticks (read faggots).

          I do not think it is a coincidence that primitive peoples have polysynthetic languages and polytheist religions. All that crazy Comanche tree spirit jibber jabber is utterly useless when discussing technologically advanced concepts.

          A similar evolution is observed in computer languages. They are simplified and dumbed-down as their use-cases get more sophisticated. There tends to be an inverse correlation between the complexity of a formal system and what it is used for. Language, culture, religion, politics, and economics (i.e. culture) are all formal systems with their own grammars.

          If you deprive children of language, they develop speech disorders or delayed speech development. If you deprive them of a good environment, they don’t learn proper behavioral or emotional syntax. Psychologists have noticed that personality disorders are multi-generational and to a great extent environmental, therefore learned.

          With academics and thinkers like Rand failing to account for the fact that normal-IQ people can’t come up with their own cultural grammars, they are utterly incapable of convincing Joe the Plumber that gender is a social construct or that deregulation is amazing.

          The Normies ask, “What have you got for me?”

          The academics reply, “Nothing. Didn’t you already arrive at these same conclusions independently? No matter. Believe our shit anyways.”

          Successful cults first appeal to the common sense of an individual by providing some sort of cultural grammar. Only after they are properly socialized do the cults indoctrinate.

  3. Tying in manic-depressive episodes and the concept of “wars with interim periods of peace” together, what makes bipolar disorder so very fucked up is that the suffers act and look normal when they are medicated. Clusters A-B’s always look, act, or think weird, even if on drugs. Others like OCD’ers just do weird shit because their anxiety, pissing people off.

    But bipolars without co-diagnoses can build up large amounts of social and financial capital in the interim periods of sanity. When they lose it, they tap into their coffers and built-up trust with people and destroy years or decades worth of progress before anyone realizes what’s going on.

    As for the man I knew, his advanced age and manic episodes led to neurodegeneration that left him a blabbering fool in a wheelchair. This was a guy who had a PhD in the sciences, and ironically was a neuroscience researcher at an Ivy League university.

Leave a Reply

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