Much to my chagrin, the alt-right movement has gained momentum in not only conservative circles but also libertarian circles. It was a reactionary movement born from people who were sick of the drivel of the extreme leftists and social justice warriors (SJWs). They are “masters” of logic against the SJWs, so they believe themselves to be masters of logic in all realms. But real facts matter when it comes to forming logical conclusions and they lack even a pedestrian understanding of economics, praxeology, immigration, et al. Without a grasp of the relevant premises and principles, even the best logic is doomed to bad conclusions. The intellectualism they believe to participate in is a sham.
The reasons that libertarians reject the ideas of the leftists and SJWs are the same reasons libertarians should reject the alt-right.
The alt-right’s preference for coercion by enforcing strict border control to secure a racially pure society is at odds with libertarian ideals. It is a violation of the rights of both the migrant and the person who wishes to grant the migrant access to his property. This institutionalized coercion, i.e. the state, is antithetical to liberty. This is the alt-right’s greatest direct transgression against libertarianism.
But there are more troublesome aspects of the alt-right. They believe that the white race is better than all of the other races and is also being held back by them. To blame others for your own problems is usually a sign of having no interest in introspection. The blaming is simply a way to skip looking to yourself as the cause of your problems. Pushing away responsibility is much easier and more convenient.
That’s the innocuous part: their nationalism is lazy and promotes self-delusion. But it is also poison. While they may not promote direct physical harm for simply not being white, the position is still despicable. Constantly beating the drums of scapegoat against other races will eventually induce actual harm. What they propose to do right now is doomed to failure, so they will claim that it’s not enough and something just a bit more drastic should be done. If you accept the premise that only one group can solve a problem, i.e. their nationalist government, then you will also accept that they need to be left unimpeded to solve the problem.
We can see this happening with any government program. Some say that since the public education system is failing to produce a decent outcome, it must be because more money needs to be spent. Some say that the wars in the Middle East haven’t been successful because the military hasn’t sent enough troops or purchased enough equipment. Do you think it will be any different when restricting immigration doesn’t solve the plight of the nationalists?
They use a conveniently coined term, race realism, to rationalize their claims of superiority. There are definite differences between races and it would be ridiculous to say otherwise. Men and women also have distinct differences but anyone who says that one is better than the other is generally identified as sexist. Why is it any different with regard to race?
They will compare places like Camden, NJ (with a small percentage of whites) to Bel-Air, CA (with an above average percentage of whites) and draw conclusions only on what is immediately observed. This is the classic confusion of causation and correlation. It is completely anti-intellectual. To only look at the surface of any issue just screams of willful ignorance especially when there are many obvious socioeconomic variables in play. Are the differences in the average wealth and crime rates of two races really due to genetics? Oh, if only all of life were that simple!
Is there nothing to be said of minority groups suffering slower growth because of interference by the state? Does the alt-right claim that poor white people are simply genetically inferior to their wealthier white counterparts? Of course they don’t; they’ll point to other variables that affect the environments in which these people live.
Why? It fits their narrative. Why analyze when you can confirm your bias?
Like all reactionary movements, the alt-right is what it claims to hate. Their philosophy is built on contempt for people they do not like. They don’t like any race that isn’t white, so they twist their philosophy to fit that. Their conclusions support their premises when conclusions should be derived from the premises.
This is exactly what the SJWs do. Ironic, isn’t it?
If it is easy to see why the extreme leftists and SJWs should be ridiculed and their ideas laughed at, then the same would have to apply to the alt-right. Even if typical leftism didn’t advocate the use of the state to enforce their views, their ideas of gender and race are so terrible that no libertarian thinks twice about immediately rejecting them. But for whatever reason, it seems common for libertarians to have more tolerance for the right wing’s array of bad ideas. Both the extreme left and the alt-right base their beliefs on irrational and purposely uninformed hatred of certain groups. As a result, they deserve no respect.
Libertarians talk a big game about their consistency. That is one of the things that is supposed to set us apart from everyone else. Show it by rejecting the alt-right.
I would never wear an alt-right badge. I will never attend a rally. With that said, I think you may be missing some key elements of the foundations of what is called the alt-right. To me, the roots seem very libertarian.
The claim that struck me was that when ethnic groups build neighbourhoods, they build with character and structure and theme and style. For instance, India has some incredible architecture, Spain, Morocco, Japan and Iran all have different styles and interests. However, when every neighbourhood is forced to mix Spanish with Moroccans, the architecture goes blah. We get these non descript redundant unspectacular mediocracy, as though it was designed to offend no one, and appeal to no one.
If the Moroccans were allowed to live all together (like they mostly want to do, see Toronto for reference) then the architecture and the culture can flourish. When they’re split up and blended all over town, they don’t seem to generate the same cultural high points that the collected diasporas can produce. I spent some time in Queens and met Italians who still can’t speak English. Honestly I loved it there. In SF I ate at a Vietnamese cafe, the waiter spoke very little english, but we had a great time and would totally go back. I do want the local Chinese to keep their culture if only because I love their food.
Alt-right founders seems especially set on Moroccans being able to live together without interference from the state. They don’t want the Koreans FORCED to mix with the Africans, and their claim was about the architecture. The mixing pot destroys architecture. And for me, that messes up my architectural photography business, because no one wants fancy pictures of mediocrity.
I want culture. I want Syrians to be able live with Syrians because I’ve tried Lebanese food and keep going back. If anglos were able to live together too, even they may find some culture of their own (besides colonialism and prositylization). I doubt that kinda, in the 1000 years of uninterrupted Dutch history, they never developed any decent food, and I doubt a Dutch neighbourhood would do it now either. But they did develop the stock market, and later the slave trade, so maybe even they can find some value beyond theft. I think they deserve a chance; I think they too should have a right to live amongst themselves–if they want–without interference from the state.
is that rayciss?
hey! Where’s my comment?
Tark you better not be censoring.
Don’t get me started about fake news, yo.