What should a libertarian do?


David Davis

Apologies again for absence. Since Gordon Brown and Tony Blair (and John Major and Thatcher too, for they failed to kill the rot while they could have done cheaply) have run out of everyone’s money, I have been scratching around on the bottom of the chicken-coop of this gigantic open prison, for things that might earn a crust or two. Not much success, but some thoughts.

Libertarians, as we are now, are good at talking to ourselves. We blog, we rant, we publish sundry pamphlets, and all the while the gramsoStaliNazis go marching on. Through the “Institutions” (they’ve done that now and have corrupted them quite fully enough), through the “New Universities” – that great hotbed of bureaucrat-spawning which they wanted deliberately to create so as to keep the supply of willing concentration-camp-guards going, using courses like “Town Planning Studies” (I made that one up but you know what we mean.)

We the Libertarians have not been very good at seeing how to trip up our enemies capitally, using no money, in no time, and with no resources. This is a failing. We are quite good at articulating arguments for liberalism, which is to say: capitalism and individual freedom in all aspects of life, but we are absolutely shite at persuading the right number (which is to say: thousands and thousands and thousands, and more thousands) of people (not just “students” who will be “important” later) _/IN POWER NOW/_ that we are right, and everything that they have been taight and have hitherto believed about which way round the relationships in a civilisation are, is wrong.

That their view of how society works is an inversion of the truth, and that ours is the correct way up, escapes them totally. We know we are right, and we know they are wrong, but can we get it across?

Nah.

Dr Sean Gabb, who has been on the TV and the radio more times than all of us together have had a hot dinner, is used by the Enemy-Class as the statutory fall-guy, and straw-man, whose mike can be turned off as soon as he has said something that Yasmin Alibi-Brown can’t answer. The rest of us, about five, won’t even get asked on, even if we could perform. Look at what was done to The Devil even, by that guy who pilloried him on live TV a few months ago.

I’m not saying I know what the solution is. Can anybody help in the discussion, in which I hope you will all get killed in the rush to respond?

About these ads

17 responses to “What should a libertarian do?

  1. chris southern

    Until the system starts to fall apart and the effects are felt by the vast majority this roller coster will continue.
    All empires have been built in the same manner, run in the same manner and have collapsed in the same manner (and for the same reasons.)

    It is about making sure that when it happens a real alternative is spread amongst people, then it is up to the people to decide.
    Personaly I think we are going to see goverments collapse and large coperations merging to form Mega corperations that run areas (communism merged with corperatism) with their own laws on their land.

    The future isn’t bright, but it may be owned by orange hehehehe

  2. “The future isn’t bright, but it may be owned by orange hehehehe”

    This is both funny and sad.

    Tony

  3. Dave:

    By the time that Cameron & Co. have pushed their attacks on poor people through, there will be thousands of recruits available to the “socialists” and the “GramscoFabiNazis”. Libertarian pamphlets telling them it’s their own fault, and is for their own good, will (to flirt with understatement) be difficult to get people to read.

    Tony

  4. At the risk of being boring:
    If one can just address reality; the truth; communicate reality, that is sufficient.
    The problems are (a) being honest enough with oneself to lay hold of the simple truth without mangling it too much in one’s own emotions and bias and (b) getting it out past the communication monitors.
    The monitors have taken control of MSM but the internet and various other media (pamphlets, private publication, public meetings . .) are substantially outside their control.
    Light does dispel dark.
    If one can lay hold of the facts/reality, and effectively communicate it to the the conditioned, you can undo a year’s expensive media programmes in 10 minutes.
    I think a first step is laying hold of one’s own conditioning. No man is an island? More like boats in a current.

  5. No idea about what to do now, but if the message is reaching students who’ll be important later then there’s at least some hope for the future.

  6. Roger Thornhill

    I think the message must go out now, before the downfall, so people have an answer, otherwise they are at risk of falling into the usual traps.

    To me one of the answers is YouTube.

    It bypasses the MSM monitors, can go viral and allows us to communicate in full AV.

    However, it is all well and good saying that, but making them does take TIME, especially if one is to craft the message to a non-Libertarian audience.

  7. observer (not the newspaper)

    A good start would be to clean up this website and have more coherent blog postings without spelling errors and references to ‘GramscoFabiaNazis’. You’d lose lots of the banter but would gain readership. Look at cato.org for an example. Either smarten up and get serious or have fun writing provocative, ungrammatical rubbish. If you choose the latter so be it, just don’t whine when people don’t take your output seriously.

  8. It seems to me that it’s pretty obvious the plurality of people prefer to hear, `I’ll steal the other guy’s stuff and give most of it to you’ than about a system that relies on morals and ethics. John Adams remarked apropos the American Constitution that it was fit only for a moral and religious people. Most people appear (I say “appear” meaning by my observations and by talking with people about philosophy) to believe human affairs are a zero sum game. Children are taught from an early age that their are too many people using up too much stuff, an easy concept for a young child to grasp.

    A small proportion of the world’s population controls the way the vast majority see things. The intarw3bz is in the process of being locked down to make sure it stays that way.

    The way I see it, unless you can get enough guys together to do a fair bit of targeted assassination… I’ve always thought the one guy I’ve seen thinking along the right lines was Jim Bell with his “Assassination Politics.”

    http://cryptome.org/ap.htm

  9. It’s basically a boots on the grond problem. THe basic problem with individualists/libertarians/ what have you is that pretty much by definition we are not the kind of people who like doing the things that gain political power. We want to get on with our own private lives, that’s all.

    We don’t want to be petty bureaucrats. We don’t want to attend endless meetings, pushing for tiny scraps of power one iota at a time. We don’t want to do those things. Authoritarians always win because they do. They enjoy the committees and the meetings and the endless deadlock and waste of time. It provides meaning in their lives. It gives them something to do.

    It’s not as organised as we like to think it is. There is no GramscoFabiaNazi cabal running the destruction of Western Civilisation. Just a lot of sad people who get a buzz out of getting their way. Neither is it just “the left”; the failure of liberty is as much down to the conservative old dear on the parish council demanding this and that as it is to lefties. What these people all have in common is simply being authoritarians by nature; and authoritarians by nature believe it is their duty to impose their will.

    I watched some bits of the excellent television play “Nuts In May” the other day. The point when whinging ninny Keith bellows, “IT IS MY DUTY TO PROTECT THE COUNTRYSIDE!” sums up our enemy. They spend their whole lives trying to enforce rules. We don’t. We just want to be left alone.

    So libertarians will always fail, in this regard. We just don’t get wet knickers at the thought of another ten hour committee meeting about carbon neutrality, and they do. They attend, and we don’t. They do it because they love it. We don’t love it so we don’t do it.

    Which is why we spend our time primarily whinging to each other, and writing books for each other to read. We just aren’t, by nature, political power seekers; and thus they fill the ranks of the political classes, and we don’t. And we never will. We are excluded by the very nature that makes us libertarian in the first place.

  10. I think one excellent example of how this works is the paedophile panic. I’ve been researching this a bit lately, and it’s quite sobering to realise that a handful of people in the right places- probably countable in the tens, certainly in the low hundreds- have been able to entirely transform the relationship between parent and child within, pretty much, a single generation; creating a vicious secret court system, an astonishing level of terror in the general population and, ultimately, the “Independent Safeguarding Agency” with oversight over every interaction between adults and children in the UK.

    It’s an astonishing success, made even more spectacular when you consider that it was grounded in a scare story so absurd as to defy belief; that of the Satanic Conspiracy and the debunking of that scare did nothing at all to slow down the campaign. Consider, indeed, that one of those key handful, the odious Beatrix Campbell, got a CBE for her work.

    Libertarians don’t position ourselves where we can effect change. They do.

  11. @”Observer” (not the newspaper):-

    We type when we can, and some of us can spell and some cannot. That’s how it is here on this bolg.

    I’m not going to upbraid those who like to type here but can’t spell or spellcheck. They do it for nothing, like the rest of us, when we and they can, in our own time, unsing our own money, and because we and they must.

    They love life and liberty, unlike those who love tyranny and death, and who have cheerfully and frankly said so, such as the Jordanian head-hacker-of-Iraq (late) and the (late) Osama bin Laden. They love death so much that they have embraced this impossible state, for others as well as themselves.

    GramscoFabiaNzis love death too while yet staying alive themselves: preferably the deaths of millions of “the masses”, whose individual deaths are “a statistic”. They’d like the world’s population to be about, oh, I calculate, 200 million (if that) – the purpose being that you could create a “hunting preserve” of say 400 square miles, and not find a living person inside it to impede your assaults on brown furry animals of various kinds. They then are sufficiently regal and “high” to be able to shag the prettier children of the surviving serfs, who exist on boiled roots without salt.

    Oh, and there is no alcohol or tobacco for the serfs. And “drugs” and ciggies have been dis-invented. That’s what the “war on drugs” is all about – they are de-existing the things now, before we all go under the “Endarkenment”, so that no knowledge of the stuff remains to the surviving Shamans and “Chemists”, and “Witches”, who could make bearable what remains of the lives of those not in the Enemy-Class.

    I’m not sure to what extent any of you people realise the depth of deliberate, purposeful and studied and planned wickedness and voluntary evil, in which our enemies willingly wallow, and believe, and seriosuly _want_ to spread.

  12. Dave:

    You have a grim idea of the future,and you infer that evil people are plotting to make it that way. I think you’re wrong on this: the future will be better than you fear, and the evil people are mostly well-intentioned but mistaken. And it is mere pedantry for people to get uptight over mis-spellings, as long as their meaning is reasonably clear.

    Tony

  13. I think the longer term will be rather good, and then perhaps even wonderful; maybe even Utopian. But I think the signs suggest that it is likely that we are to suffer at least one more great tyranny, and perhaps a very great conflagration.

    We discovered the secret of how to have the best possible world around three hundred years ago, but the forces of conservatism- manifesting as the various collectivisms- are tenacious and will not be easily unseated. History seems to demand one final demonstration of why they must be repudiated. I would like to think this is not inevitable, but the omens are not good.

  14. One aspect of why libertarians are not currently very effective is to do with the way we think and express ourselves. We tend be graduates, have read learned stuff about liberty and express our ideas in quite abstract ways.

    To communicate ideas to the great mass of people who are not at all interested in political thought & abstract political argument you have to digest them to the level of slogans, show how these people will benefit and overcome both the terror of freedom and the progressive prejudices drilled in to people.

    A second aspect is that progressives have managed to create a policy lock on most areas of public policy. Mencken pointed out a lifetime ago that practical politics was largely about scaring people with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. Progressives seem to instinctively understand this, and have used this tactic relentlessly. Some of their phantasms have been successful beyond their creators wildest dreams: the war against drugs, the fear of terrorism, the fear of predatory paedophiles, the fear of guns, the fear of being labelled racist, etc..

    Infact, to even talk about certain subjects in anything other than progressive terms is the political equivalent of jumping up and down on the edge of a cliff in a gale.

    Regrettably, the best tactics in dealing with progressives probably come out of the Alinsky school of thought. For instance, you can never do too much to undermine respect, trust and confidence in progressive individuals and progressive institutions. Discredit the people and the institutions, and the destruction of their ideas will follow, as sure as dawn follows night.

  15. I’ve looked up this Beatrix Campbell thingy. What a disgustingly evil droid.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrix_Campbell

    Also, note the ref highlighted in the wikitext to her being consciously a “Gramscian”.

  16. Ah David, if you really want to get your blood boiling, read this-

    http://www.dramatis.hostcell.net/BCOBE/bcobe.html

  17. Aetius, why discredit the people? That is nasty stuff and can turn on you.
    Ad hominems are bad policy.
    Discredit the ideas, always the ideas. Truth/reality is most competent at standing on its own feet.
    In fact don’t even bother to discredit ideas. Just communicate the truth!
    The truth is beautiful, honourable, decent and by definition, true. It never has to stab anyone in the back.
    And it really is simple.
    You don’t even need a degree :)