Five Differences Between the Alt-Right and Libertarianism

[Timshel]

https://fee.org/articles/five-differ...-libertarians/

Well, Hillary Clinton has gone and done it.


To the cheers of alt-righters everywhere, those angry lords of the green frog meme who hurl edgy un-PC insults at everyone to their left, the Democratic nominee has put them on the map at long last. Specifically, she accused Donald Trump of encouraging and giving voice to their dark and dangerous worldview.


Let’s leave aside the question of whether we are talking about an emergent brown-shirted takeover of American political culture, or perhaps merely a few thousand sock-puppet social media accounts adept at mischievous trolling on Twitter. The key issue is that more than a few alt-rightists claim some relationship to libertarianism, at least at their intellectual dawning until they begin to shed their libertarianism later on.


What are the differences in outlook between alt-right ideology and libertarianism?


1. The Driving Force of History


Every ideology has a theory of history, some sense of a driving theme that causes episodic movements from one stage to another. Such a theory helps us make sense of the past, present, and future. The libertarian theme of history is beautifully articulated by Murray Rothbard:


My own basic perspective on the history of man...is to place central importance on the great conflict which is eternally waged between Liberty and Power... I see the liberty of the individual not only as a great moral good in itself (or, with Lord Acton, as the highest political good), but also as the necessary condition for the flowering of all the other goods that mankind cherishes: moral virtue, civilization, the arts and sciences, economic prosperity. Out of liberty, then, stem the glories of civilized life.


There it is: liberty vs. power. Liberty unleashes human energy and builds civilization. Anything that interferes with the progress of liberty impedes the progress of humanity. One crowds out the other. The political (or anti-political) goal is clear: diminish power (which means reducing unjust violence) and enhance liberty.


Whereas libertarianism speaks of individual choice, alt-right theory draws attention to collectives on the move. It imagines that despite appearances, we all default in our thinking back to some more fundamental instinct about our identity as a people, which is either being shored up by a more intense consciousness or eroded by a deracination and dispossession from what defines us. To criticize this as racist is often true but superficial. What’s really going on here is the depersonalization of history itself: the principle that we are all being buffeted about by Olympian historical forces beyond our control as mere individuals. It takes something mighty and ominous like a great leader, an embodiment of one of these great forces, to make a dent in history’s narrative.


2. Harmony vs. Conflict


A related issue concerns our capacity to get along with each other. Frédéric Bastiat described the free society as characterized by a “harmony of interests.” In order to overcome the state of nature, we gradually discover the capacity to find value in each other. The division of labor is the great fact of human community: the labor of each of us becomes more productive in cooperation with others, and this is even, or rather especially, true given the unequal distribution of talents, intelligence, and skills, and differences over religion, belief systems, race, language, and so on.


And truly, this is a beautiful thing to discover. The libertarian marvels at the cooperation we see in a construction project, an office building, a restaurant, a factory, a shopping mall, to say nothing of a city, a country, or a planet. The harmony of interests doesn’t mean that everyone gets along perfectly, but rather than we inhabit institutions that incentivize progress through ever more cooperative behavior. As the liberals of old say, we believe that the “brotherhood of man” is possible.


Some argue that war is what defines us and even gives life meaning, and, in that sense, is glorious and celebratory. For this reason, all nations must aspire toward homogeneity in stock, religion, and so on, and, as for the sexes, there must be dominance, because cooperation is an illusion.


Maybe you notice a certain commonality with the left here. In the 19th century, the Marxists whipped themselves up in a frenzy about the allegedly inherent conflict between labor and capital. Their successors fret incessantly about race, ethnicity, ability, gender, and so on, pushing Marxian conflict theory into ever more exotic realms. Ludwig von Mises captured this parallel brilliantly when he wrote, “Nationalist ideology divides society vertically; the socialist ideology divides society horizontally.” Here, as with many other areas, the far right and far left are strangely aligned.


3. Designed vs. Spontaneous Order


The libertarian believes that the best and most wonderful social outcomes are not those planned, structured, and anticipated, but rather the opposite. Society is the result of millions and billions of small acts of rational self interest that are channelled into an undesigned, unplanned, and unanticipated order that cannot be conceived by a single mind. The knowledge that is required to put together a functioning social order is conveyed through institutions: prices, manners, mores, habits, and traditions that no one can consciously will into existence. There must be a process in place, and stable rules governing that process, that permit such institutions to evolve, always in deference to the immutable laws of economics.


Again, the alt-right mind finds all of this uninspired and uninspiring. Society in their conception is built by the will of great thinkers and great leaders with unconstrained visions of what can be. What we see out there operating in society is a result of someone’s intentional and conscious planning from the top down.


If we cannot find the source, or if the source is somehow hiding, we imagine that it must be some shadowy group out there that is manipulating outcomes – and hence the alt-right’s obsession with conspiracy theory. The course of history is designed by someone, so “we” might as well engage in the great struggle to seize the controls – and hence the alt-right obsession with politics as a contact sport.


Oh, and, by the way, economics is a dismal science.


4. Trade and Migration


The alt-right is universally opposed to free trade and free migration. You can always tell a writer is dabbling in alt-right thought (or neoreactionary or Dark Enlightenment or outright fascism) if he or she has an intense focus on international trade as inherently bad or fraudulent or regrettable in some sense. To them, a nation must be strong enough to thrive as an independent unit, an economic sovereignty unto itself.


Today, the alt-right has a particular beef with trade deals, not because they are unnecessarily complex or bureaucratic (which are good reasons to doubt their merit) but because of their meritorious capacity to facilitate international cooperation. And it is the same with immigration. Beginning at some point in the late 19th century, migration came to be seen as a profound threat to national identity, which invariably means racial identity.


5. Emancipation and Progress


The libertarian celebrates the profound changes in the world from the late Middle Ages to the age of laissez faire, because we observed how commercial society broke down the barriers of class, race, and social isolation, bringing rights and dignity to ever more people. Slavery was ended. Women were emancipated, as marriage evolved from conquest and dominance into a free relationship of partnership and consent. This is all a wonderful thing, because rights are universal, which is to say, they rightly belong to everyone equally. Anything that interferes with people’s choices holds them back and hobbles the progress of prosperity, peace, and human flourishing. This perspective necessarily makes the libertarian optimistic about humanity’s potential.


The alt-right mind can’t bear this point of view, and regards it all as naive. What appears to be progress is actually loss: loss of culture, identity, and mission. They look back to what they imagine to be a golden age when elites ruled and peons obeyed. And thus we see the source of their romantic attachment to authority as the source of order, and the longing for authoritarian political rule. As for universal rights, forget it. Rights are granted by political communities and are completely contingent on culture. The ancients universally believed that some were born to serve and some to rule, and the alt-right embraces this perspective. Here again, identity is everything and the loss of identity is the greatest crime against self anyone can imagine.


Conclusion


To be sure, as many commentators have pointed out, both libertarians and alt-rightist are deeply suspicious of democracy. This was not always the case. In the 19th century, the classical liberals generally had a favorable view of democracy, believing it to be the political analogy to choice in the marketplace. But here they imagined states that were local, rules that were fixed and clear, and democracy as a check on power. As states became huge, as power became total, and as rules became subject to pressure-group politics, the libertarianism’s attitude toward democracy shifted.


In contrast, the alt-right’s opposition to democracy traces to its loathing of the masses generally and its overarching suspicion of anything that smacks of equality. In other words, they tend to hate democracy for all the wrong reasons. This similarity is historically contingent and largely superficial given the vast differences that separate the two worldviews. Does society contain within itself the capacity for self management or not? That is the question.


None of this will stop the mainstream media from lumping us all together, given that we share a dread of what has become of the left in politics today.


But make no mistake: the alt-right knows exactly who its enemies are, and the libertarians are among them.

[Timshel]

Is it just me or does grind conspicuously look more like the description of the alt right?

[Mr. Shaman]

Well, Hillary Clinton has gone and done it.

Yeah....sure....outta nowhere.

Who could have seen it coming?


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ley-chronicles

*
https://consortiumnews.com/archive/clinton.html


Well......TRUMPY'S IN, TO HIS CHIN, NOW!!!!!!



*

*

[Timshel]

Yeah....sure....outta nowhere.

Your response has nothing at all to with the article.

[Mr. Shaman]

Your response has nothing at all to with the article.

You need to work on your reading-comprehension.....rather-than simply looking for one, more thing to whine-about.

[Timshel]

You need to work on your reading-comprehension.....rather-than simply looking for one, more thing to whine-about.

My reading comprehension is fine. You apparently read one sentence before jerking your knee. Your response has nothing at all to do with the article.

[USFREEDOM911]

You need to work on your reading-comprehension.....rather-than simply looking for one, more thing to whine-about.

Are you Yurt??

[Minister of Truth]

Conflict is far more natural than harmony.

[Timshel]

Conflict is far more natural than harmony.

Absolutely not. Do you go through your life always fighting with others or do you mostly live in relative harmony with others? Since you are alive and not in prison, I am guessing it's the latter.

Marxist conflict theory is nonsense. Wealth is created through cooperation with others. Conflict only ever leads to a general loss of wealth.

Even the Nationalists and Marxists are aware that without cooperation they will starve. But they just limit the cooperation to those within their class, race or nationality.

I always wondered why Grind was so fond of the word "proletariat." That's not a word commonly used by libertarians and I have only ever heard it from Marxists. But now I know where Grind got it from.... the NRxers and alt right. Is he one of them or just polluted with their crappy ideas?

[canceled.2021.3]

I think it is hilarious that Crooked ILLary trots out this "alt right" meme and the dutiful libtards climb right on board like they have been using the term for decades. Sorta reminds me of white hispanic

[Minister of Truth]

Absolutely not. Do you go through your life always fighting with others or do you mostly live in relative harmony with others? Since you are alive and not in prison, I am guessing it's the latter.

Marxist conflict theory is nonsense. Wealth is created through cooperation with others. Conflict only ever leads to a general loss of wealth.

Even the Nationalists and Marxists are aware that without cooperation they will starve. But they just limit the cooperation to those within their class, race or nationality.

I always wondered why Grind was so fond of the word "proletariat." That's not a word commonly used by libertarians and I have only ever heard it from Marxists. But now I know where Grind got it from.... the NRxers and alt right. Is he one of them or just polluted with their crappy ideas?

My observation is that people are constant douchebags to each other. I have always been able to ignore slights, such as getting cut-off or bumped into, but few other people can or do. The irony is that I get judged for wishing pain upon killers and rapists, etc. I don't look at conflict on the order of society as a whole, but, this seems to be the nature of people on the smallest level.

[Mott the Hoople]

Is it just me or does grind conspicuously look more like the description of the alt right?

Who cares? Scratch the surface and ultimately you're talking the difference between anarchy and authoritarianism.

[Timshel]

My observation is that people are constant douchebags to each other. I have always been able to ignore slights, such as getting cut-off or bumped into, but few other people can or do. The irony is that I get judged for wishing pain upon killers and rapists, etc. I don't look at conflict on the order of society as a whole, but, this seems to be the nature of people on the smallest level.

You are talking about trivial traffic issues. What does that have to do with Marxist social conflict theory or Bastiat's harmony of interests?

It's well known that people behave differently in cars than they do in general. So I don't think there is any take away from that at all and certainly none relevant to this.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...nce-psychology

[Minister of Truth]

Do they behave differently while walking, because I also had that in mind. People are always looking for a way to be douchebags to one another.

[Timshel]

Do they behave differently while walking, because I also had that in mind. People are always looking for a way to be douchebags to one another.

Did you get into Grind's stash? Lol, again, I am talking about economics and you are discussing driving etiquette and some douchebag that gave you the stiff shoulder. Honestly, I can't say as I have noticed people behaving that badly while walking. Even driving, I think most people are fine though in general we do behave worse. Young males also seem to be a particular problem. In both settings it is often the person that thinks they are putting things right and on the side of justice that really cause the problem.

Again, I don't see the relevance or how it really translates to the idea that we are in perpetual war with other races/classes/nations/creeds.