Now you modify your statement, to assert that the state must merely [assert] it has a monopoly on [legitimate] violence. Any group can easily make assertions about their claims to legitimacy and territory. Every invasion or revolution makes that claim.
Nope. It is you who is refuses to accept standard textbook definitions and then shifts the burden to somehow knock down your own version.
You oppose states, which do have borders. Without states, there would be no borders. So, you must also oppose borders.
True. Of course, we are talking about borders, not boundaries.
Without borders, any moral claims would apply universally.
Absolutely false. Nonsense.
You claim to know the entire field of philosophy for the last two hundred years,
No, I actually only claimed to have a University 102 Freshmen course knowledge of philosophy, where within such a course one would become familiar with Kant’s critiques of pure and practical reason.
Obviously you aren’t aware of the philosophy of rational empiricism (advocated by most American logicians of the late 19th century, and also the early Bertrand Russel), precursor to Objectivism (which apparently you feel is not part of philosophy).
Actually, I had a sufficient mathematical background to actually tackle Bertrand Russell’s Principia Mathematica.
RE: Objectivism: academic philosophy by and large ignores it. I certainly don’t subscribe to it. Rand, however, did have influence on me as a teenager. But it was primarily her novels, not her non-fiction stuff. Although I suppose I can admit that at 16-17 years old, I did think Kant was the devil. It didn’t stick, though.
“anarchy” simply means, no rulers. Nothing about a “class” of rulers, which puts a Marxist spin to the definition. Please cite one dictionary which backs up your claim
I can simply cite the first paragraph of Benjamin Tucker’s “State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree & Wherein They Differ”
From Tibor Machan:
Machan writes like libertarians invented the definition of the state as the monopoly on violence. They didn’t.
Kevin S Bjornson
July 30, 2017
Now you modify your statement, to assert that the state must merely [assert] it has a monopoly on [legitimate] violence. Any group can easily make assertions about their claims to legitimacy and territory. Every invasion or revolution makes that claim.
For instance,
–Islamic State claims the entire world
–Hitler and his henchmen made a claim to German territory
–A bunch of libertarians sitting around drinking beer and smoking joints can easily make whatever claims they want to.
And so on. Again I ask, name one state that meets even your revised definition.
You oppose states, which do have borders. Without states, there would be no borders. So, you must also oppose borders. Without borders, any moral claims would apply universally. Justice is a subset of morals. Therefore justice applies universally. Since you oppose borders, the system of justice you propose, would also apply universally. So, any organization of force which you propose to enforce justice, would have universal jurisdiction; and be a government, if not a state.
You claim to know the entire field of philosophy for the last two hundred years, Yet you cite as believers in the philosophy of liberty, Austrians (who got the philosophy part wrong) and monetarists (monetarism is not part of philosophy).
Obviously you aren’t aware of the philosophy of rational empiricism (advocated by most American logicians of the late 19th century, and also the early Bertrand Russel), precursor to Objectivism (which apparently you feel is not part of philosophy).
“anarchy” simply means, no rulers. Nothing about a “class” of rulers, which puts a Marxist spin to the definition. Please cite one dictionary which backs up your claim (unless you mean to invent a private language). Here is the origin of the word:
C16: from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos without a ruler, from an- + arkh- leader, from arkhein to rule
From Tibor Machan: http://www.strike-the-root.com/content/government-vs-state
Within libertarianism, though, the concept ‘government’ is still unstable. Anarcho-libertarians, who argue for something they dub ‘competing legal systems’ ‘or competing defense organizations,’ claim that the concept ‘government’ means, essentially, ‘a monopoly of legal services over a given territory.’ This isn’t as clear cut as one might wish. Are they talking about legally protected monopolies or monopolies plain and simple, which could mean very competitive organizations, indeed’for example, a department store sitting on a large piece of private property that has no competitor right then and there but is amply competed with by stores in the nearby vicinity? Yet where it stands, it’s a monopoly, in a sense. Or an apartment house’it too stands alone and to rent a competitor’s dwellings, one needs to move.
There are libertarians called minarchists, with whom I am usually linked’along with Ayn Rand, John Hospers, the late Robert Nozick and during the last few years of his life, Roy A. Childs, Jr. (although he also penned a famous piece, ‘The Contradiction in Objectivism,’ back in 1968, for Rampart Journal, in which he announced his dissent from Rand’s minarchist position). I disagree that governments may not compete and may coerce anyone. To be fair, neither did Ayn Rand agree that governments may coerce anyone’she, for example, denied that taxation is permissible while also claiming government is, thus disowning the characterization of government by perhaps the most famous anarcho-libertarian, Murray N. Rothbard.
But as Gallie’s point makes clear, this debate as to what is the most sensible, reasonable definition of ‘government’ is likely to continue for a long time, if not indefinitely. In my own view, for example, the institutions anarcho-libertarians support are governments in every important respect’they are administrators, maintainers, and protectors of bona fide law within human communities. What critics claim is that such administration, maintenance and protection do not require contiguous spheres of jurisdiction but could work as a sort of crisscross system.
From a few historical cases, in which such a system had been in place’in ancient Iceland, for example’these disputants conclude that as a general rule governments could operate quite happily, smoothly, with no judicial failures’such as inability to arrest prosecute criminals or to render effective service when citizens (or clients) seek police protection’serving crisscross localities. OK, so this is an interesting debate and worthy of pursuit. Either way we could get to government, however.
The editor of “Modern Scientific Thought” takes seriously my view that the Greco-Romans created the modern era. He’s very prominent in Russia, as an economist and is frequently on Russian televsion. So obviously I am not alone in this.
Obviously no estate has established a territorial monopoly of violence, or there would be no private violence, nor invasions nor revolutions. I pointed this out many times in my debate with SEK3. Cite one example where such a monopoly has been actually accomplished.
Territorial monopoly on violence doesn’t mean the state is the only entity that commits violence. It means it territorially monopolizes that claim of the only legitimate use of violence or force.
The US does claim universal jurisdiction, but most governments do not. How do you square your apparent acceptance of universal overlapping jurisdictions, with categorical anti-interventionism?
What apparent acceptance of universal overlapping jurisdictions are you referring to?
You keep going around in circles within your own head, without really listening to what i’m saying.
No, I think you just clarified your position. I stand corrected on that matter, I suppose.
Your definition of “anarchy” serves your own views, and is not supported by dictionaries. “anarchy” means no rulers, not no ruling class by arbitrary authority.
“no rulers” === “no ruling class, particularly no ruling class by arbitrary authority”
or a mere slight variance to accommodate liberal/individual anarchism interpretations
The “ought” must be derived from (at least a portion of) the “is”. Otherwise, the ought would be derived from the is-not. However, something must come from something, and cannot come from nothing. Natural justice (the ought) is derived from human nature (the ideal portion of the is). Human progress is teleological and should strive for fulfillment of human potential. Humans are rational animals.
David Hume says hello. And you are ignoring the entire field of philosophy for the past 2 centuries starting w/ Kant who attempted to deal w/ the fallout from Hume.
Kevin S Bjornson
July 30, 2017
The editor of “Modern Scientific Thought” takes seriously my view that the Greco-Romans created the modern era. He’s very prominent in Russia, as an economist and is frequently on Russian televsion. So obviously I am not alone in this.
Previous to the modern era, were the neolithic and paleolithic eras, which lasted much longer than the modern era (a blink of the eye). Prior to that were no known humans.
Kevin S Bjornson
July 30, 2017
Obviously no estate has established a territorial monopoly of violence, or there would be no private violence, nor invasions nor revolutions. I pointed this out many times in my debate with SEK3. Cite one example where such a monopoly has been actually accomplished.
The US does claim universal jurisdiction, but most governments do not. How do you square your apparent acceptance of universal overlapping jurisdictions, with categorical anti-interventionism?
I don’t share Hobbes’ view of the estate of nature, which he claimed was characterized by a war of all against all. I maintain to the contrary, that organized wars didn’t start until after mankind left the estate of nature, and began to accumulate stored wealth, which became a target of gangs of thieves. You keep going around in circles within your own head, without really listening to what i’m saying.
Your definition of “anarchy” serves your own views, and is not supported by dictionaries. “anarchy” means no rulers, not no ruling class by arbitrary authority. Again you want to define all government as bad government.
The “ought” must be derived from (at least a portion of) the “is”. Otherwise, the ought would be derived from the is-not. However, something must come from something, and cannot come from nothing. Natural justice (the ought) is derived from human nature (the ideal portion of the is). Human progress is teleological and should strive for fulfillment of human potential. Humans are rational animals.
Territorial monopoly violence has never been achieved, cannot be achieved, and should not be achieved.
I invite you to try to setup your own little sovereign jurisdictional government within US jurisdiction to see what happens.
Though I think ideally, governments should have criss-cross universal jurisdiction.
They by and large do have criss-cross universal jurisdiction.
So, you still want to target SS retirement benefits, but on a lower priority?
Low priority means low priority, i.e, not really much of a target.
If you think Jus Naturale is exclusively a Roman concept,
Not what I wrote…
How do you propose to counter organized plunderers, unless by organizing government by subscription in defense/retaliation?
I don’ t share your Hobbesian conclusions. If I did, I would have to side w/ Hobbes that the violence of the state of nature would merely be exported to the legislatures. That’s why his book was called Leviathan and not Parliamentarian Democracy. Resorting to a Hobbesian view of things is a cannon that also takes out constitutional, democratic government as nothing but a ruse for “organized plunder.”
The Enlightenment was a refinement of the Renaissance, which was a recapitulation of ancient civilization that had been suppressed by the Dark Ages.
True
If we look at the entire span of human existence, at least hundreds of thousands of years (if not a million or more), obviously the Romans started the modern era and Stoics improved on the Roman system.
Again, you are the first person that I know of who refers to Chapter 1 of “Western Civilization” textbooks as the start of the modern era.
Since anarchy disappeared over 10,000 years ago, how do you propose to reinstate the estate of nature?
Anarchy simply means no ruling class(in particular no ruling class by arbitrary authority) and implies a justice of mutual advantage. The law is heuristic law, which simply means, that which is found to work is what is used. If you deny that, I assure whatever concoction you come up w/ in terms of liberty will be at variance w/ both liberalism and libertarianism***. It’s why I’m particularly skeptical of natural law concoctions, as in your case, b/c I view them often as nothing but an excuse for a form of the naturalistic fallacy(what has been and what is==what ought to be…which is what I think you are doing here).
*** For example, Locke viewed the state of nature not as a war of all against all, but rather merely as a suboptimal state where defense of property == opportunity cost. The essential gist of Locke is the right to revolution.
I see. You’re willing to accept financial collapse, either because you have alternate methods already in place (I don’t trust Bitcoin and will never use it) or you have sufficient savings so you can retire (I don’t and can’t).
No, I would go down w/ the ship, too. However, that’s not an argument for why it can’t or shouldn’t happen.
Kevin S Bjornson
July 30, 2017
Territorial monopoly violence has never been achieved, cannot be achieved, and should not be achieved.
Though if on one side of a border there are many more who would do harm, those on the relatively safer side might be wise to side with the relatively better state.
Though I think ideally, governments should have criss-cross universal jurisdiction.
So, you still want to target SS retirement benefits, but on a lower priority? Why, so millions of retired folk, many of whom can no longer work to support themselves, could die a few years from now instead of right away? That’s not very reassuring to voters. I imagine similar applies to food stamps (EBT).
If you think Jus Naturale is exclusively a Roman concept, you aren’t really familiar with the Greco-Roman tradition. Jus Naturale developed as a synthesis of Roman common law and Stoic philosophy. The Greco-Romans did embrace territorial government (city-states) and we certainly have to start there, but theoretically this could evolve eventually into criss-cross universal jurisdictions (though of course this would completely demolish anti-interventionism and still would depend on some form of government).
How do you propose to counter organized plunderers, unless by organizing government by subscription in defense/retaliation? We must reject anti-interventionism, or otherwise every person would be a self-defense island.
The Enlightenment was a refinement of the Renaissance, which was a recapitulation of ancient civilization that had been suppressed by the Dark Ages. If we look at the entire span of human existence, at least hundreds of thousands of years (if not a million or more), obviously the Romans started the modern era and Stoics improved on the Roman system.
The modern world clearly had roots in part of the ancient world (which laid the foundations). Unfortunately, slavery marred the Greco-Roman system, discouraging industrialization, and this is a major factor in their downfall.
Since human liberty is based on human nature, I’d be very surprised if just in the last few hundreds years all of a sudden people discovered human nature. Since anarchy disappeared over 10,000 years ago, how do you propose to reinstate the estate of nature? Go back to hunting-gathering? Obviously, the agricultural and industrial revolutions created stored wealth, which led to organized plunder and organized defense against plunder.
Kevin S Bjornson
July 30, 2017
I see. You’re willing to accept financial collapse, either because you have alternate methods already in place (I don’t trust Bitcoin and will never use it) or you have sufficient savings so you can retire (I don’t and can’t).
SO, how do you propose I stay in business, after the collapse of the banking system? I’m all ears.
The state can be used to organize plunder, but not all states are equal. If the relatively better states simply disbanded, that would leave worse states free to greater plunder. There is no way that all states or governments will simply disband, absent divine intervention; and to suppose otherwise, is a delusion of fools.
“The state is the organization of plunder” is not a premise. It is a descriptive statement, a conclusion. Hitherto, there have been no exceptions. Your claim essentially boils down to: we must have a Gambino family b/c the Genovese family is worse. And, you know what, if the state actually acted like the mob, I might be inclined to concede your point. However, the state doesn’t act the like the mob. You pay the mob off to leave you alone. You pay the state off to harass you. It is this characteristic that turns the organization of plunder into a discretionary power maximizing firm. So, while I will concede that the state appears to be a normative(or natural) part of human reasoning, it’s behavior in practice is alien(that is, the citizens eventually become the enemy). It is for that reason I put an expiration date on the shelf life of this thing, the territorial monopoly of violence. To say that it is delusional to forecast the eventual end of the state is no more delusional than pointing out the Enlightenment/Renaissance ended the roughly 1000 year reign of the dark ages. So, let us toast to the Enlightenment 2.0.
What you do propose to do about the millions of Americans now relying on SS retirement? Let the market do it’s work? How would that work, exactly? You can’t just wave a magic wand with the right labels and expect people to believe things will work out.
This is a red herring. You keep bringing this up. To me, it’s a fallacious argument of the form” There can’t be disruption b/c there would be disruption.” I’m under no burden to centrally plan the mitigation of disruptive consequences. That being said, I have made it clear that hypothetical libertarian political power should not target the poor man’s plunder as a first priority. This actually stands in contrast to much of the “classical liberal” advocacy which often seems to want to make such targeting a first priority.
I never advocated Roman Law. What you think of as Roman Law, are the worst aspects (rarely if ever does history provide perfect examples) and especially Napoleanic Law.
Obviously you are not familiar with Jus Naturale and Jus Gentium. I recommend Henry Sumner Maine’s Ancient Law, chapter four in particular. Or you could read my treatise, which summarizes.
No, I’m certainly familiar with Jus Naturale(Roman conception of natural law) and Jus Gentium(customary law held in common internationally). It is just that the enlightenment(or modern) version of natural law was not the same as Cicero’s version(the philosopher usually associated with that Roman concept). And, as I have numerously pointed out before, enlightenment liberals drew a sharp demarcation between the modern(starting with the enlightenment) and the ancient. In contrast to, say, Cicero’s view of the state, a view that held the state to be a natural part of humanity(inheriting from the ancient/classical Greece view), liberalism only saw the state as an artificial tool. Once you view the state as an instrument or tool it is easy to see how something like anarchism could arise as a serious intellectual tradition under liberalism, natural law or not. You know, if you begin to see that tool is a particularly shoddy instrument. Whereas something like anarchism would be an anathema/unthinkable under Roman Jus Naturale.
I’m a big fan of Bastiat. Though I don’t think he advocated for the complete abolition of government. Neither did Henry George, who supported taxation (a land tax), something I don’t advocate.
No, Bastiat wasn’t an anarchist(I think he would have converted if he had lived long enough). However, his proclaimed intellectual protege certainly was.
So I don’t think you can simply wave a list of mostly obscure, post-renaissance authors and assume people will believe you are their inheritor or that they or you are familiar with the ancient common law; and how that developed, with Stoic assistance, into the natural justice theory which built the modern world (about 2000 years ago).
The writers I listed are not obscure. Both liberalism and libertarianism are products of the enlightenment. You are in a distinct minority to view libertarianism as a product of the ancient world. You also occupy a particularly slim minority to view the modern world as something that apparently began 2000 years ago.
Neither Austrian nor monetary economics are part of the Jus Naturale tradition. Austrians are interested in philosophy, but are mistaken in it; while monetarists are simply uninterested in philosophy.
I agree that Austrian economics is not part of the Jus Naturale tradition, for the reasons I outlined above. Of course, I would also be remiss not to point out that I’m not a subscriber to Austrian economics.
By “classical” I mean, “ancient”. We are talking about different things. While I am familiar with most of the intellectual tradition you claim to be part of, you know nothing of it’s much earlier foundation.
Actually, I have a pretty good familiarity with the classic world. Although, off the top of my head, it would be philosophy more so than rote history. And Greece more so than Rome. I’m certainly not a scholar of the ancients, but I generally know enough to ask the right questions to quickly find what I need to find.
You, on the other hand, demonstrate a certain lack of clarity regarding the distinctions between the modern world and the ancient world, between liberal political philosophy and the classical view of politics. You declare authors obscure that should not be obscure to any educated libertarian. What is one to think of that?
Obviously you know nothing about business. Now I am dependent on wire and card transfers, which go through the federal reserve system. To simply tear down the present banking system, would quickly bankrupt me, before your utopia could emerge.
Actually, I’m officer/partner in an IT business that relies exclusively on wire and card transfers, too. Whining that you would be negatively affected by disruption is not an argument that he status quo is thus necessary.
Kevin S Bjornson
July 29, 2017
Obviously you know nothing about business. Now I am dependent on wire and card transfers, which go through the federal reserve system. To simply tear down the present banking system, would quickly bankrupt me, before your utopia could emerge.
Kevin S Bjornson
July 29, 2017
The state can be used to organize plunder, but not all states are equal. If the relatively better states simply disbanded, that would leave worse states free to greater plunder. There is no way that all states or governments will simply disband, absent divine intervention; and to suppose otherwise, is a delusion of fools.
From an ideological viewpoint, not all governments are states. I favor rightful governments, but not states.
What you do propose to do about the millions of Americans now relying on SS retirement? Let the market do it’s work? How would that work, exactly? You can’t just wave a magic wand with the right labels and expect people to believe things will work out.
I never advocated Roman Law. What you think of as Roman Law, are the worst aspects (rarely if ever does history provide perfect examples) and especially Napoleanic Law.
Obviously you are not familiar with Jus Naturale and Jus Gentium. I recommend Henry Sumner Maine’s Ancient Law, chapter four in particular. Or you could read my treatise, which summarizes.
Nor have I advocated for a monopoly central banking system with fiat money. You haven’t been listening. To make an analogy; suppose all farms were state-owned. Would you be anti-farm, and favor their destruction–or would you want free enterprise farms to replace them, in an orderly manner (to avoid disruptions to the food supply)?
I’m a big fan of Bastiat. Though I don’t think he advocated for the complete abolition of government. Neither did Henry George, who supported taxation (a land tax), something I don’t advocate.
So I don’t think you can simply wave a list of mostly obscure, post-renaissance authors and assume people will believe you are their inheritor or that they or you are familiar with the ancient common law; and how that developed, with Stoic assistance, into the natural justice theory which built the modern world (about 2000 years ago).
Neither Austrian nor monetary economics are part of the Jus Naturale tradition. Austrians are interested in philosophy, but are mistaken in it; while monetarists are simply uninterested in philosophy.
By “classical” I mean, “ancient”. We are talking about different things. While I am familiar with most of the intellectual tradition you claim to be part of, you know nothing of it’s much earlier foundation.
There are legitimate functions of government, that is true in theory and practice. To suppose that liberty could flourish without organized protection, is a delusion and a major reason the LP is not getting traction.
The state is the organization of plunder. Indisputably true in practice.
Many millions of Americans are dependent on Social Security retirement…blah,blah,blah
I explicitly state above that I don’t consider “privatizing social security” to be the libertarian position.
The Federal Reserve Banking system now provides many essential functions, like clearing inter-state and inter-bank transactions. Without clearing, the US economy would quickly grind to a halt, so clearly this function needs to be “privatized”.
The current political economy for finance would certainly grind to a halt. I don’t dispute that. However, I do dispute that a centralized money monopoly is a necessary condition for trade and banking. Nonsense.
My treatise on Classical Libertarianism was published in the Russian academic journal, “Modern Scientific Thought”
Never heard of it.
If you don’t think classical libertarian represents true libertarianism, please cite authors from previous centuries who agree with whatever it is you favor.
I don’t dispute that classical libertarian represents true libertarianism. I simply dispute that classical libertarianism == Roman law.Libertarianism is a product of the enlightenment, not the ancient world.RE: authors to support my contention, I should shrug this off w/ a snide comment, but I’ll bite:
Off the top of my head:
Frederic Bastiat
Richard Cantillon
Charles Comte
Charles Dunoyer
Benjamin Constant
François Quesnay
Vincent de Gournay
Gustave de Molinari
Henry Thoreau
Benjamin Tucker
Lysander Spooner
Joseph Proudhon
Emma Goldman
Henry George
Voltairine de Cleyre
Joseph Dejacque
Lucy Parsons
The word “libertarian” was actually first used by Joseph Dejacque in his 1857 letter to Proudhon that accused Proudhon of being liberal but not libertarian(not surprising!) . Dejacque was in the United States at the time he wrote the letter, but he would return to his native France soon thereafter. Which brings me to a larger point at hand. Libertarianism is by and large an import from the French liberal tradition, a tradition that traces back to the French Physiocrats and ultimately to de Gournay’s translations of the Chinese Daoist philosophical tradition. The terms typically associated w/ libertarianism, laissez Faire, entrepreneur and bureaucracy, all originate from the French liberal tradition.
Anyone who has actually sat down and read Bastiat’s “Economic Sophisms” would scoff at trying to equate that with the “classical liberal” invention that later came out of the Mont Pelerin Society(Hayek, Friedman, Mises and Popper). For Bastiat, plunder occupies an ubiquitous centrality to his analysis. From the chapter “Two Systems of Ethics”
Having arrived—if he does arrive—at the end of the preceding chapter, the reader may well exclaim:
“Well, was I wrong to accuse economists of being dry and cold? What a portrait of mankind! Plunder is represented as an omnipresent force, almost a normal phenomenon, assuming every guise, practiced under any pretext, legal or extralegal, perverting to its own purposes all that is most sacred, exploiting weakness and credulity by turns, and constantly growing by what it feeds on! Could any more depressing picture of the world be imagined?”
But the question is, not whether it is depressing, but whether it is true. History says that it is.
In the chapter “The Physiology of Plunder,” Bastiat goes as far as to define the practical use of economics to be the identification of plunder.
I have said enough to show that political economy has an evident practical utility. It is the torch that, by exposing fraud and dispelling error, destroys that form of social disorder called plunder. Someone—I believe a woman—has rightly defined it as “the safety lock on the savings of the people.”
From the same chapter, Bastiat equates the effects of plunder on society to a mass delusion that best could analogized in modern terms to something like “The Matrix.”
I go still further. When plunder has become a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.
.
.
.
It is not individuals who are to blame, but the general tendency of public opinion that blinds and misleads them—a tendency of which the whole of society is guilty.
The same is true of monopoly. I accuse the system, and not individuals; society as a whole, and not any of its members in particular. If the greatest philosophers were incapable of seeing the iniquity of slavery, how much easier it is for farmers and manufacturers to deceive themselves concerning the nature and effects of protectionism!
That for sure ain’t classical liberalism. And while it’s true that Bastiat wasn’t an anarchist(he died too soon before he could convert. Bastiat was a bit of an outlier in that he grew more radical as he aged), his intellectual protege, Gustave de Molinari, was one. Molinari came up w/ the private defense stuff long before Rothbard managed to rediscover it.
in your view, the worst gov’t in world history, right?
I think it’s well on its way(if it continues on its current trajectory) to occupying a place in that historical pantheon. Who would you prefer to blame for the current state of affairs on the world stage, Lichtenstein?
Kevin S Bjornson
July 27, 2017
There are legitimate functions of government, that is true in theory and practice. To suppose that liberty could flourish without organized protection, is a delusion and a major reason the LP is not getting traction.
Many millions of Americans are dependent on Social Security retirement; they have contributed to the system by paying SS taxes and planned their retirement accordingly. To imagine that most of them could simply re-join the work force isn’t realistic (many do not have children, and if they do, their children might not be able or willing to support them). SS retirement could be funded by sale of government land, which could be traded to insurance companies in exchange for their assuming SS liabilities.
If you don’t want to “privatize” government land, I suppose instead it could be salted by radioactive waste to prevent future use for any purpose, right?
The Federal Reserve Banking system now provides many essential functions, like clearing inter-state and inter-bank transactions. Without clearing, the US economy would quickly grind to a halt, so clearly this function needs to be “privatized”.
My treatise on Classical Libertarianism was published in the Russian academic journal, “Modern Scientific Thought”; an updated version is available on the Libertarian Defense Caucus website. My knowledge of this topic was not invented by me, but discovered by scholarship in preparation for my teaching at liberty camps in the former Soviet Union. Since the principles of liberty are based on natural law, it’s not surprising that many generations going back 2500 years resonate with it.
If you don’t think classical libertarian represents true libertarianism, please cite authors from previous centuries who agree with whatever it is you favor. I’m still not clear what that is, except a generalized angst over all government in general, with special emphasis on the US government (in your view, the worst gov’t in world history, right?).
Just to elaborate…just because voters will run screaming to be wrapped in the loving arms of the Demopublicans if we strut around, proud as a peacock with a suggestion that we privatize social security now
FYI: I don’t consider “privatizing social security” to be the libertarian position. It may be the Cato position, but I consider Cato to be a GOP think tank. Libertarianism is not “privatize” existing state functions. That ends up being associated with “Black Water” crap…and rightly so, IMO. Plus, going after the poor man’s plunder should be the absolute lowest priority.
There is plenty of data to back that up. Polls are regularly taken that include voters AND nonvoters. None of them ever show an appetite for the change we Libertarians wish to see.
(1) Stick your finger in the wind(median voter theorem) is the absolute worst strategy for 3rd party politics. And its not an opinion. It’s in the political science literature.
(2) I would dispute your claim that “libertarian change” is any less popular than “Republican” change or “Democratic” change.
(3) Third party party politics only requires 1/3, not a majority. So, 10% or so only support drug legalization. But 60% support pot legalization. You have to be brain dead and devoid of a spine not to think you can’t work w/ that(or interpret that as a cautionary yellow light). Particularly in the context of 3rd party politics.
To make an analogy; suppose you wanted to compete with the Microsoft operating system. Many people are upset with it but it still seems to dominate. Would you offer in competition, an operating system with the same flaws? Why would people buy your system, when it offers no advantages, and because of obscurity has compatibility issues?
No one ever did beat Microsoft for the consumer desktop device market. However,
(1) Linux long ago supplanted Windows in the server farm
(2) Google did usurp Microsoft for the most used app on Microsoft’s own desktop device: Chrome
(3) Apple and Google turned the consumer desktop into a shrinking market in the overall general consumer device market.
So the obvious answer to MS dominance was to change the game: the creative destruction of new markets. Unfortunately, politics(at least in the US), is a winner take all game. Scientifically, this enforces a duopoly. Politics simply does not resemble a “market” in the usual meaning. Hence, market analogies fail. What you are left with(other than possibly party disintermediation opening up occasional opportunities at the local levels) is not “change the game,” but rather “change the narrative.” “Change the Narrative” does not necessarily require a purity of message, but it is certainly aided w/ consistency of message that is consistently differentiated from the status quo.
dl claims that criticism of LP leadership is coming from one person only–me. I guess that’s why Gary Johnson did so well in the last two elections, huh? I guess Austin Petersen and Wayne Root are figments of my imagination.
I see Bjornson is demonstrating his superior reading comprehension skills again. I obviously made no such claim. What I did point out–as a retort to your claim that the LP leadership is ignoring classical libertarianism–was that your version of classical libertarianism is subscribed to by no one except yourself. How you managed to twist that into the statement above–namely, that you are the only one critical of LP leadership– beats the heck out of me.
Anthony Dlugos
July 26, 2017
Just to elaborate…just because voters will run screaming to be wrapped in the loving arms of the Demopublicans if we strut around, proud as a peacock with a suggestion that we privatize social security now…it doesn’t mean we can’t actually get to that reality at some point down the line. But we gotta reach the voters where they are at now.
Anthony Dlugos
July 26, 2017
I don’t disagree with a lot of what you posted there.
However, I tend to think we Libertarians tend to WAY overestimate the amount of change voters…and nonvoters alike…will even consider, let alone vote for. Upset with the establishment? Sure. Ready to privatize social security and release all non-violent drug offenders. Not on your life. Not only is such epochal change not wanted now, it will never be demanded by anything more than the 1/2 percent baseline the LP typically gets.
There is plenty of data to back that up. Polls are regularly taken that include voters AND nonvoters. None of them ever show an appetite for the change we Libertarians wish to see.
So, getting to your analogy with Microsoft…if the flaws are attributes that people want, for whatever reason, I would certainly consider including them in my operating system. I’m not saying my product may be exactly alike, but there may be things people who buy computers want, even if they are design flaws. Its certainly possible to create a better o.s. constrained by the flaws the consumer demands.
Kevin S Bjornson
July 26, 2017
Many or most voters are fed up with the establishment. They are tired of moderates and RINO’s. They are hungry for change, and upset that even when the GOP controls both houses and the presidency, serious reforms are still blocked. There is no way that the LP can compete for the establishment vote, that already belongs to the two majors.
To make an analogy; suppose you wanted to compete with the Microsoft operating system. Many people are upset with it but it still seems to dominate. Would you offer in competition, an operating system with the same flaws? Why would people buy your system, when it offers no advantages, and because of obscurity has compatibility issues?
Why should someone vote LP, when almost certainly it’s candidates will lose? The only possible reason is, the LP offers a clear vision of significant change, based on ideas. If LP candidates like GJ can’t even explain liberty philosophy when asked, and he will lose, why should people pay attention to him? They haven’t, despite that the 2016 election had record-high dissatisfaction with the two major candidates.
I don’t favor “anarcho-capitalism” [sic] for both ideological and marketing reasons. I understand the need to not come across as a kook. I’ve frequently criticized the LP for flaunting a flamboyant face, a which amounts to a persistent persona problem. We need to simplify the message, and resonate with voters in areas of strongest agreement.
Anthony Dlugos
July 26, 2017
“The fact remains, GJ is not a libertarian. At best, he’s a moderate. He has virtually no knowledge of the theory and many of his positions are unlibertarian”
“The fact remains, GJ is not a libertarian.
He’s a member of the Libertarian Party. In the arena of electoral politics, that’s all that matters.
“At best, he’s a moderate.”
Good. Voters aren’t interested in Ancapistan.
“He has virtually no knowledge of the theory…”
So what? Are you aware of the job he was running for? Anything more than the most rudimentary understanding of theory is unnecessary, verging on the counterproductive.
Kevin S Bjornson
July 26, 2017
dl claims that criticism of LP leadership is coming from one person only–me. I guess that’s why Gary Johnson did so well in the last two elections, huh? I guess Austin Petersen and Wayne Root are figments of my imagination.
That reminds me of a Heinlein short story, about a man who was the center of everything. Cities don’t exist on their own, but are created as props for the central character. I didn’t know I was that important!
The fact remains, GJ is not a libertarian. At best, he’s a moderate. He has virtually no knowledge of the theory and many of his positions are unlibertarian.
Yes, I’m fully aware that for some, “western civilization” has replaced “anglo saxon” as the preferred dog whistle for christian white caucasian.
Invictus is a pagan, so I don’t think he means “Christian.” It’s more likely that he rolls Christianity into being, along with Judaism and Islam, “three weeds from the same root.”
It’s a mistake to believe that Invictus’ references to “western civilization” are anything except a transparent euphemism for “white race.”
Yes, I’m fully aware that for some, “western civilization” has replaced “anglo saxon” as the preferred dog whistle for christian white caucasian.
Kevin S Bjornson
July 25, 2017
My understanding of “western civilization” is completely different than that of Invictus.
The political aspects of Western civilization originated in the synthesis resulting from Rome’s conquest of Athens. Roman common law overlapped with portions of Stoicism, to form the theory of natural justice (Jus Naturale).
The philosophical aspects were mostly Greek. The best Greek philosopher was Aristotle.
Educated people at the time, were familiar with both aspects. Unfortunately, the printing press wasn’t then in use, only elites were so educated. The masses were mostly pagan, like Invictus.
Christianity appealed to pagans, it’s simple message could be communicated without books, and the christ dying on the cross theme saved them money (they no longer had to sacrifice animals, like the goats Invictus relishes).
Judaism can be considered a paleo-humanism, which influenced Stoicism. Christianity is a middle eastern import and should not be considered part of western civilization as classically defined.
Classical libertarianism went astray during the feudal era, when the non-interventionist theory distorted traditional understandings of Jus Naturale.
Foreign policy is relevant, because when western civilization is attacked by a foreign adversary, we can’t afford to ignore or minimize that.
These things are explained in greater detail in my treatise, which was originally published in a Russian academic journal dealing with modern scientific thought.
LP leadership has very little understanding of classical libertarianism. They are like blind-folded people stumbling through a library, with only a few glimmerings making it through their self-imposed blinds.
I should also note that as Invictus and his ilk use it “western civilization” (or “white race”) does not include Jews. I am of mostly Jewish ancestry, and the US regime considers me to be “white” but Invictus and his ilk do not. The same holds true of other peoples of Middle Eastern origin.
A major component of “western civilization” as conventionally understood is Christianity and its roots in Judaism, and Jews in diaspora have contributed a great deal to the philosophy, art, and other things that make up “western civilization,” but from the antisemitic perspective that is embedded in Invictus’ “revolutionary conservatism” Jews and Muslims alike are a cancer on “western civilization”; he openly discusses killing both Jews and Muslims, and writes that the US government’s failings include “fear of the Jews.” And his nonsense about “white genocide” is an insult to say the least to ethnic groups which have experienced actual genocide.
I assume everyone here has taken a course on “western civilization” in high school. This is not difficult. It is simply tracing a set traditions of philosophy, science, art, politics, law, ethics, etc back to ancient Greece. And It certainly is not simple cultural arc. For example, in religion, Greek philosophy had major impacts on both Christianity and Islam(Aristotle). The enlightenment or the renaissance was a rediscovery of sorts of the ancient greek philosophic tradition sans the intermediary religious authority that has accumulated over the reign of the dark ages. And it should be note the dark ages only ended b/c of the social upheaval brought about by the black plague.
Libertarianism/laissez faire doesn’t originate from the West. It originates from Chines philosophic tradition. It was translated into the West by the French physiocrats.
It’s a mistake to believe that Invictus’ references to “western civilization” are anything except a transparent euphemism for “white race.” In an email that was forwarded to me yesterday from Augustus Invictus to Raquel Okyay (the same one in which he issued threats against myself and others) dated June 3 2017 Invictus writes:
We represent a group much, much broader than the LPF, and you know this. Joe Wendt represents no one but Joe Wendt. We have not just libertarians but Republicans and independents, militant groups, anarchists and authoritarians, revolutionaries and conservatives, and a whole host of Americans who are sick to death of the corruption of the System.
What do all these diverse people have in common, I wonder?
My treatise does define the political dimension of the birth of civilization in the west:
Rare to read a treatment on western civilization divert to a presentation on contemporaneous geopolitical foreign policy strategy. Some might be inclined to thusly view the “western civilization” preamble as a pretext.
I assume everyone here has taken a course on “western civilization” in high school. This is not difficult. It is simply tracing a set traditions of philosophy, science, art, politics, law, ethics, etc back to ancient Greece. And It certainly is not simple cultural arc. For example, in religion, Greek philosophy had major impacts on both Christianity and Islam(Aristotle). The enlightenment or the renaissance was a rediscovery of sorts of the ancient greek philosophic tradition sans the intermediary religious authority that has accumulated over the reign of the dark ages. And it should be note the dark ages only ended b/c of the social upheaval brought about by the black plague.
Libertarianism/laissez faire doesn’t originate from the West. It originates from Chines philosophic tradition. It was translated into the West by the French physiocrats. Laissez faire is at odds with the social contract traced through Roman Law back to ancient Greece. Indeed, liberalism itself is at odds w/ that tradition. The greek tradition is what today we would call a much more a communitarian tradition. The state, the polis is a natural fabric in the moral orientation of human beings. Whereas liberalism holds the state to be an artificial construct, an invented tool. Something like anarchism was an anathema to Plato and Aristotle. However, in liberalism it is usually the starting point.
The one thing that should be a source of unanimity RE: western civilization is that it doesn’t require State protection. Anyone who argues otherwise is pining for the worst aspects of it. Conservatives who flap “western civilization” are certainly yearning for a return to the dark ages tradition of it.
Those are all great reasons to leave the Libertarian Party.
What doesn’t make sense here is why you’d join a party that welcomes so many people who do precisely the same things you say you left the Libertarian Party.
Controversial Western Civilization Crusader Augustus Sol Invictus
I’m surprised that they didn’t at least put “western civilization” in quotes. We all know what he really means.
Luke
July 18, 2017
Leftists “have infiltrated and corrupted” the L.P., the former Senate primary-election loser charges on his way out the door
Translated into reality: Reichwingers tried to infiltrate and corrupt the LP and failed miserably, sending their former Senate primary election loser on his overdue way out the door. Huzzah!
Kevin S Bjornson
July 18, 2017
Defining “western civilization” is like defining human nature. Augustus seems to define the west according to some of it’s worst elements. With a few good features, to provide camouflage for his use of the LP as a vehicle for his psychodrama.
There is no way that libertarianism would be compatible with Plato’s notion of philosopher kings, even if the king were a white supremacist neo-nazi.
Neither does neo-paganism represent western culture, Paganism was/is to be found around the world, with no discernible affinity for reason. Even though in the estate of nature, of humans as hunter-gatherers, there was little government; but that was simply because there was little stored wealth that would give rise to the need for government protection.
Trump is a mixed bag and Augustus seems to identify with a parody of an image of the POTUS that does not truly reflect the man, or at least his better instincts. He is pretentious and is amazingly ignorant.
That being said, the LP leadership isn’t much better.
My treatise does define the political dimension of the birth of civilization in the west: http://www.defendliberty.net
Thank you Andy for posting this item of interest to members of the Libertarian Party.
Matt Welch with Reason has written a post about the departure of Augustus Sol Invictus from the Libertarian Party. It has more truth in it than nine out of ten articles about Invictus. I think both supporters and detractors will find something of value in it should they read it. As of this moment the post has 57 comments.
Titled: Controversial Western Civilization Crusader Augustus Sol Invictus Bolts Libertarian Party for the GOP
Subtitled: Leftists “have infiltrated and corrupted” the L.P., the former Senate primary-election loser charges on his way out the door
“Does anyone really care what this attention grabbing clown does? He is a non-event. He is truly insignificant to the LP which makes him even less significant to the GOP. He is truly a skid mark on the boxer shorts of life!”
You are probably right. I don’t think he is going to do anything significant, unless it’s some kind of horrible terrorist and/or criminal act(s).
Luke
July 16, 2017
Maybe he has different personalities. One is the charming, “normal” persona, one is the vacant-eyed nut, one is the fake accent orator, etc. He’s almost without any doubt at the very least a sociopath, combined with extreme narcissism (he named himself the majestic unconquerable Sun-God, etc), and quite possibly much more seriously mentally ill; but like other sociopaths, he knows how to hide the craziness and put on an engaging, functional persona when it suits him. I don’t think he has any bright political future in any party, but I could easily see him pulling off another Oklahoma City type of bombing or something of that nature. The allegations of domestic violence and rape have not been proven true, but those allegations were not surprising in any way and if they do turn out to be true that will not be a surprise either.
—–
I’m told [Augustus Invictus] beyond weird in person, verging on disturbed. “Vacant eyes” I’ve heard more than once.
—–
He didn’t strike me that way at all. When he’s not engaged in public oratory, he’s an engaging and friendly guy. Or at least he was with me.
It was never Augustus Invictus as an individual who needed to be defeated, or distanced from the LP. It was the ideas he supports. And while attacking him as an individual can be both personally satisfying, and effective in the short term and specific situation, he’s fairly inconsequential and it’s those ideas that have to be defeated.
I’ve administered the WSPQ at countless county fair booths. Less than 25% identify in the libertarian quadrant.
Same here, although I have not been doing it lately, but I collected easily in the 5-figure range of data points (individual results) on it going back as far as at least 1992. I may have actually helped some LPers with running it at their booth even before that, back before I was one myself, but I can’t remember for sure. In any case in the 1990s and early 2000s the typical distribution was maybe 15-25% libertarian quintile. The smaller number of times I have done it more recently, it does not seem to have changed much, although there is somewhat less unfamiliarity with the term and less surprise when people score libertarian (although the surprise still happens, only less often).
In some places I tend to get a slightly higher l-quintile distribution. At colleges, the single biggest cluster I noticed was always around the left-center-libertarian border but still plenty not even close to L-quintile. At guns shows the biggest cluster was right-center-libertarian. Those were my biggest go to spots for signatures and I often did the quiz in conjunction with petitioning. I did go to a bunch of county fairs and other similar events too, and there the biggest cluster often tends to be a big column up the middle from top to bottom, with smaller concentrations on the left and right.
My memory is a long way from perfect, but at the moment I can’t recall anywhere other than a libertarian event where I got over say 40% or so in the libertarian quintile.
NewFederalist
July 15, 2017
Does anyone really care what this attention grabbing clown does? He is a non-event. He is truly insignificant to the LP which makes him even less significant to the GOP. He is truly a skid mark on the boxer shorts of life!
my worry is that Petersen and/or A.I. could both come back, although I think Petersen would be more likely,
Petersen is bouncing back and forth too many times to retain credibility on either end of the bounce. Invictus has no credibility to begin with, so there’s nothing to lose.
Cody Quirk
July 15, 2017
Yep. TLR is reporting that Augustus has officially left the L.P.
Anthony Dlugos
July 15, 2017
my worry is that Petersen and/or A.I. could both come back, although I think Petersen would be more likely,
Trump had 100% name recognition, 40 years spent crafting a phony-baloney populist message, several billion dollars, a series of golddigger high-profile wives, and so on. For all that, the GOP was willing to cut him a lot of slack with regard to his nationalist flirtations. Obviously, Goat Blood doesn’t bring any of those prerequisites to the table.
He’ll learn soon enough how wedded the GOP is to soft-core fascism and how wedded it is to doing/saying whatever it takes to win. It’ll happen about that time they use his head as a battering ram and throw him out into the alley through the side door.
I don’t expect him to become any kind of star in the NSGOP. Hopefully he won’t come back to the LP ever again.
Bondurant
July 15, 2017
Augustus is correct in pointing out that the Libertarian Party failed to produce a libertarian ticket but he’s wrong that Austin Petersen was the right choice. It is nice to see the conservatives tiring of the LP and I hope the same will be true for the Democrats that seem to be attracted now for some reason. Reform your own parties. Stop mucking things for those of us that actually care.
Anthony Dlugos
July 15, 2017
paulie,
“Normally that would be the case. But the stench of fascism around Drumpf did not lead to him being shown the door; quite the opposite.”
Trump had 100% name recognition, 40 years spent crafting a phony-baloney populist message, several billion dollars, a series of golddigger high-profile wives, and so on. For all that, the GOP was willing to cut him a lot of slack with regard to his nationalist flirtations. Obviously, Goat Blood doesn’t bring any of those prerequisites to the table.
He’ll learn soon enough how wedded the GOP is to soft-core fascism and how wedded it is to doing/saying whatever it takes to win. It’ll happen about that time they use his head as a battering ram and throw him out into the alley through the side door.
Anthony Dlugos
July 15, 2017
“Interesting that Augustus does this around the same time that Austin Petersen left for the GOP. Coincidence?”
That’s what I was wondering about. I haven’t heard anything about the alt-reich losing their grip on LPFL, so it is strange that he decides to do this now, days after AWP does the same. Goat Blood Boy is not actually taking advice/following the lead of the AWP, is he?
In any case, I hope Elmer Fudd Invictus doesn’t get his hopes up. There might be a market for AWP’s righty libertarianism. He might be able to land a job on The Blaze or something. There’s no market for what appears to be a fascist with sociopathic mannerism.
Interesting that Augustus does this around the same time that Austin Petersen left for the GOP. Coincidence?
But nevertheless still, good riddance. The more such alt-right plants leave for the GOP, the better.
Richard Winger
July 15, 2017
I believe Larry Sharpe has announced his intention to seek the New York Libertarian gubernatorial nomination. I hope if that is true that IPR does a story on that.
And it’s not like this should be news to Andy, as it has been posted in multiple past threads. You have to be deliberately ignorant to ignore that level of proof. Simple thick headedness does not even begin to explain it.
Here is a video of a speech Augustus recently gave to the Queens Libertarians in New York City. Note that Larry Sharpe can be seen in the audience during this speech, and that early in his speech, Augustus compliments Mr. Sharpe, and says that he’s a fan of his (or something to that effect).
Augustus Invictus: Address to the Queens Libertarians
Regardless of any of the merits or demerits of Augustus Sol Invictus, I can’t see him being nominated to any office by the Republican Party, except for maybe some low level office, but I am skeptical that they would even nominate him to run for a low level office. I’d say that his chances of being nominated by the Republican Party are lower than Austin Petersen’s chances of winning the Republican US Senate primary in Missouri, and Austin Petersen’s chances are pretty damn low in that race.
The irony of the situation is that he seems to think he’s gonna find a more sympathetic ear in the GOP. The reality is Republicans (and Democrats, for that matter), are far less tolerant of anything that doesn’t help them win. They don’t put up with childish coffee house debates about who is and who is not a Republican when they come from the mentally deranged. Once they get a whiff of his fascism, he’ll be shown the door with prejudice.
Normally that would be the case. But the stench of fascism around Drumpf did not lead to him being shown the door; quite the opposite. I think the Republicans may well be headed (further) in that direction than ever before. It’s not surprising that a fascist like Invictus is drawn to their party.
I predict his 15 minutes of fame in politics is way over.
I hope so but I suspect he is the kind of turd that will keep floating back up, stubbornly refusing to go down the drain at the bottom of the toilet bowl as he should.
Ironically, the political positions of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are closer to being Nazi than the political positions espoused by Augustus Invictus.
That’s complete nonsense. Invictus was literally a card carrying member of the National Socialist Movement and still makes speeches at their rallies, among many other racist groups he addresses on a regular basis. You degrade yourself by defending this piece of shit.
Augustus was labeled as being a “racist” and a Nazi multiple times,
That’s because he is.
yet he brought up that he was married to a brown skinned Hispanic woman, and that he had part Hispanic kids.
Formerly married, and he would be far from the only racist who has had interracial relationships.
His actual political platform was also quite libertarian, certainly far from being a Nazi platform.
His actual political platform is a lot more than one issue platform on a website. There are numerous articles, speeches, videos etc of him spouting fascist, racist shit, calling himself a fascist, making speeches to racist groups, etc, etc, etc. It has been documented here in great detail more times than I can count, and you should know this by now.
Also, note that in the video that starts this thread, he said that he voted for Larry Sharpe to be the LP’s VP nominee.
Again…so what? Bigotry is a complex phenomenon. People are not cartoons. The fact that Invictus is a racist is a fact, not an allegation.
If you would like the opportunity to engage me in political debate, I am in Ohio right now. So perhaps we can get together somewhere, and have a political debate, to be placed on video and posted online, and we can let the public decide who is more libertarian.
Why would it be any different than in print? I’ve discussed political issues with you in person and it’s no different than online. The only difference in person is that it’s hard to get a word in edgewise a lot of the time. I pause a lot when I speak and you jump in before I have finished my sentence, much less my thought. Why do you think that debating you in person is any more convincing to the audience than doing so in print?
Andy 2017/07/14 at 10:53 am TL; DR. I have documented in great detail how Invictus is a racist, fascist, bigoted piece of shit – now, not just in the past, and definitely, not just maybe – in multiple past threads. I don’t care to argue about it again. Reread past IPR Invictus threads if you have any doubts.
Ironically, the political positions of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are closer to being Nazi
*sigh* you are a truly sick man. How have you lasted this long in life without being involuntarily institutionalized?
Andy
July 14, 2017
“Jill Pyeatt
July 14, 2017 at 12:12
This is an extremely weird guy. I couldn’t even finish the 8 minute video, mainly because of his ridiculous fake accent.
Good riddance. I predict his 15 minutes of fame in politics is way over.”
A lot of people have said the same thing about his accent (which sounds forced, or exaggerated, if not completely fake), myself included.
Since he became a big topic here on IPR over the last 6 or 7 months or so, I have watched a lot of his videos. If nothing else, I think he’s entertaining.
Anthony Dlugos
July 14, 2017
Jill,
I’m told he’s beyond weird in person, verging on disturbed. “Vacant eyes” I’ve heard more than once.
The irony of the situation is that he seems to think he’s gonna find a more sympathetic ear in the GOP. The reality is Republicans (and Democrats, for that matter), are far less tolerant of anything that doesn’t help them win. They don’t put up with childish coffee house debates about who is and who is not a Republican when they come from the mentally deranged. Once they get a whiff of his fascism, he’ll be shown the door with prejudice.
Seriously, I predict he’ll show up here in Los Angeles, thinking he can make it as one of those people who are famous because they’re famous (like the Kardashians). They’ll eat him alive.
This is an extremely weird guy. I couldn’t even finish the 8 minute video, mainly because of his ridiculous fake accent.
Good riddance. I predict his 15 minutes of fame in politics is way over.
Andy
July 14, 2017
Ironically, the political positions of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are closer to being Nazi than the political positions espoused by Augustus Invictus. Augustus never proposed a secret government enemies list to deny people the right to purchase firearms, unlike Johnson/Weld. Augustus did not support the war on Iraq, or the Patriot Act, like Bill Weld did. Unlike Johsnon/Weld, who only called for taxing and regulating marijuana, but keeping the rest of the War on Drugs going as it is, Augustus Invictus called for an end to the entire War on Drugs.
“Tony From Long Island
‘July 14, 2017 at 11:24
Andy:
Check out this clip of Augustus reading Odysseus in the Land of the Dead with his daughter (who looks Hispanic).’
What the hell does what his daughter “looks like” have to do with anything? You continue to paint yourself as a xenophobe and then get all self-righteous when you are called on it.”
Augustus was labeled as being a “racist” and a Nazi multiple times, yet he brought up that he was married to a brown skinned Hispanic woman, and that he had part Hispanic kids. I was just posting a video clip I found of Augustus reading with his daughter, because I don’t think that most people here have seen his daughter. His actual political platform was also quite libertarian, certainly far from being a Nazi platform.
Also, note that in the video that starts this thread, he said that he voted for Larry Sharpe to be the LP’s VP nominee. Since Sharpe is half black this also flies in the face of the allegation that Augustus is a horrible racist.
Tony From Long Island
July 14, 2017
Andy:
His platform was certainly a lot more libertarian than that of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld
Your Johnson obsession continues . . . .
” . . .I am not a “sad, demented nut,” nor am I a conservative. . . . . If you would like the opportunity to engage me in political debate, I am in Ohio right now . . . .
Your daily conspiracy crap belies that first point . . . . .still using the tired old “let’s debate” nonsense. . . .
Anthony Dlugos
July 14, 2017
Tony.
“What the hell does what his daughter “looks like” have to do with anything?”
That’s what I was wondering about until I realized it was Andy posting the comment.
Andy,
No 9/11 Troofer debates for me. I’m going to a Alaskan Brewing Company Tap takeover at a local brewhouse.
Tony From Long Island
July 14, 2017
Andy:
Check out this clip of Augustus reading Odysseus in the Land of the Dead with his daughter (who looks Hispanic).
What the hell does what his daughter “looks like” have to do with anything? You continue to paint yourself as a xenophobe and then get all self-righteous when you are called on it.
Andy
July 14, 2017
“Anthony Dlugos
July 14, 2017 at 11:09
‘Check out this clip of Augustus reading Odysseus in the Land of the Dead with his daughter (who looks Hispanic).’
a) I’m not gonna give that moron any clicks.”
So don’t let facts get in the way of a good smear.
“b) ‘some of my best friends are black’ says the racist.”
So are you alleging that Augustus hates his daughter?
Andy
July 14, 2017
“Anthony Dlugos
July 14, 2017 at 11:01
Andy,
He’s not a government plant. He’s a sad. demented nut, much like yourself, no offense intended. You’re welcome to show yourself out the door with him and the other alt-reichers, wackadoodle conspiracy theorists, and palecons.”
I am not a “sad, demented nut,” nor am I a conservative.
If you would like the opportunity to engage me in political debate, I am in Ohio right now. So perhaps we can get together somewhere, and have a political debate, to be placed on video and posted online, and we can let the public decide who is more libertarian.
“This is the respectable party of Gary Johnson and William Weld now.”
LOL!!!!
Anthony Dlugos
July 14, 2017
“Check out this clip of Augustus reading Odysseus in the Land of the Dead with his daughter (who looks Hispanic).”
a) I’m not gonna give that moron any clicks.
b) “some of my best friends are black” says the racist.
Andy
July 14, 2017
Check out this clip of Augustus reading Odysseus in the Land of the Dead with his daughter (who looks Hispanic).
He’s not a government plant. He’s a sad. demented nut, much like yourself, no offense intended. You’re welcome to show yourself out the door with him and the other alt-reichers, wackadoodle conspiracy theorists, and palecons.
This is the respectable party of Gary Johnson and William Weld now.
Andy
July 14, 2017
Paul said: “I wouldn’t rule it out. The racist movement, of which Invictus is a part, is crawling with them. But, if he’s not, he’s certainly still not a ‘badass freedom fighter’ (LOL).”
If Invictus were a government plant, I don’t see why he’d join the Republican Party. Maybe I am wrong, but I just don’t see any upside to this for the government, as from their perspective, it would seem to me to be better to have him operating in third party movements.
This leads me to think that maybe he’s just a bit of an eccentric, with a flair for the dramatic, and maybe not a bad guy, as in spite of all of the hysteria against him, his platform was not bad. End the drug war, end the Federal Reserve System, end the income tax, support gun rights, end military imperialism, withdraw from the United Nations, etc… These were all issues that he espoused. His platform was certainly a lot more libertarian than that of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. Also, note that in the video above, he said that the presidential ticket for the LP in 2016 should have been Austin Petersen/Larry Sharpe. I am not exactly one of the biggest fans of Austin Petersen, but he certainly would have been better than Johnson, and Sharpe was way better than Weld.
Talking about “sacrificing” a goat sounded weird (I would not advise any candidate to wave around their religious views/practices, whether they are considered to be “mainstream” or not), but I bought some lamb at a grocery store, and I “sacrificed” it on my George Foreman Grill last night, along with some mushrooms (non-psychedelic), asparagus, and green onions, and some raw garlic and red onion, washed down with a cold New Holland Brewing Dragon’s Milk Stout. Am I any better a person because I bought the lamb from a grocery store, where other people had killed it, cut it up, and packaged it, than a person who killed their own food?
Much was made about him supporting a forced eugenics program, yet in reality, this was a view that he had abandoned years ago, and his actual position was that the existence of the welfare state creates a perverse set of incentives that punishes responsible and talented people from breeding via taxation to subsidize the breeding habits of the less responsible and less talented, and that this is an argument to call for the elimination of the welfare state. I would certainly agree that a government forced eugenics program is not inline with libertarian principles, but Augustus NEVER called for a government forced eugenics program while in the Libertarian Party, he called for ending the welfare state, which eliminates the perverse set of incentives and negative effects of taxpayer funded breeding.
If Augustus is to be demonized and held accountable for a view that he abandoned before he was in the Libertarian Party, then everyone who ever held any views that were contrary to libertarian principles ought to be held to the same standard. There are very few people who started their political journey as libertarians, due to the fact that the government dominated education system, the mainstream media, and most of society in general, programs people from a young age to NOT be a libertarian. I have also heard plenty of people espouse issue stances that I consider to be less than libertarian, who did this as ACTIVE MEMBERS of the Libertarian Party, some have even been candidates or party officers.
I had originally written Augustus off as a nut, with his talk of having sacrificed a goat, and dancing naked in the woods under the moon, and taking LSD and seducing strippers, along with his strange accent (he sounds like a Southern plantation owner/aristocrat from the 1800’s), frequent use of black and white video, and for having changed his name from his birth name of Austin Gallespie to the Roman sounding Augustus Sol Invictus. I thought that if he was not a nut, that perhaps he was a government plant, who was sent in to cause disruption, and to act crazy and make Libertarians look bad. I have not met him in person, but I have talked to some people who have met him, like Steve Sheetz, and people I have talked to who have met him said that he did not come off as a bad guy in person, and the overall impression I heard from those who have met him has been positive.
The jury is still out for me when it comes to Augustus Invictus, but after looking at him more closely over the last few months, and actually listening to what he has to say, rather than listening to the hysteria against him, I think that it is possible that he has been misunderstood and unfairly demonized (this does NOT mean that I agree with him on every detail of every issue, as I probably do not agree with anyone on every detail of every issue, and I do have some disagreements with Augustus Invictus). I DO STILL HOLD OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT HE COULD BE A GOVERNMENT PLANT WHO WAS SENT IN TO CAUSE DISRUPTION AND BEHAVE IN AN ECCENTRIC MANNER, but it is also possible that he’s just an eccentric, dramatic person, as in maybe this is just his personality.
Anthony Dlugos
July 14, 2017
paulie,
“One small request, can he take Ryan Ramsey with him as he leaves?”
I was thinking the same thing. We can only hope.
I am curious about the timing here. Does anyone know why he did this now? Is he really taking tactical political advice from Petersen.
Carol Moore/Secession.net
July 14, 2017
Ugh. Didn’t realize Hoppe was that prominent now. He defiles the concept of radical decentralization with his open bigotry. Just ran into and interview with him about it today. Well, at least I’ve start secession.net in wordpress, even if it’s just one little page. One day at a time… going through my massive database right now…
Will definitely have listing of “good” libertarian decentralist type groups and another of “bad boys” which will include hoppe and friends, among others. Keep your stupid bigotry to yourself. One can be into freedom of association without blaring who you don’t want to associate with all over the internet. Geez…
Luke
July 14, 2017
“Well, well, well! The LP of Florida’s loss is the Grand Ol’ Party’s loss. ”
I would say and assume you also meant the LPF’s gain is the GOP’s loss.
Luke
July 14, 2017
You got the first one right Carol, but the second one is Hoppe. Rockwell has certainly played a big role in facilitating all this as well.
langa
July 14, 2017
I assume you mean Rothbard and Rockwell?
Pretty sure he means Rothbard and Hoppe.
Carol Moore/Secession.net
July 14, 2017
DL wrote: “The primary architect died during his “paleo phase.” The gatekeepers bequeathed intellectual inheritance to a Frankfurt school critical theory postmodernist who has been busy rewriting Misean praxeology as something that requires a Christian caucasian social commitment to make sense. It also helps that this particular social commitment includes a rich tradition of handing money over to snake oil salesmen.”
I assume you mean Rothbard and Rockwell? If not do tell for those of us who aren’t quite sure….
Carol Moore/Secession.net
July 14, 2017
Ramsey must be disappointed actual libertarians largely ignored his call to move the LP CON 2018 to Vicksburg to respect the confederacy. ha ha ha
Pete Blome
July 14, 2017
Well, well, well! The LP of Florida’s loss is the Grand Ol’ Party’s loss. I wonder how the Altamonte Springs Fl police investigations into AI’s kidnapping, sexual assault and domestic violence accusations are coming along.
Why the Elmer Fudd accent on the way out the door?
Why not? LOL.
. a paid government plant/actor.. . .. :
*sigh* . . . . Paranoia may destroy ya.
I wouldn’t rule it out. The racist movement, of which Invictus is a part, is crawling with them. But, if he’s not, he’s certainly still not a “badass freedom fighter” (LOL).
One small request, can he take Ryan Ramsey with him as he leaves?
Indeed incongruous but not inexplicable. The primary architect died during his “paleo phase.” The gatekeepers bequeathed intellectual inheritance to a Frankfurt school critical theory postmodernist who has been busy rewriting Misean praxeology as something that requires a Christian caucasian social commitment to make sense. It also helps that this particular social commitment includes a rich tradition of handing money over to snake oil salesmen.
And now it has gone all the way down the drainpipe of the absurd to pagan neofascism.
Tony From Long Island
July 14, 2017
Andy: ” . . . .Augustus Sol Invictus is . . . . . a paid government plant/actor.. . .. :
*sigh* . . . . Paranoia may destroy ya.
He still fails to denounce him . . .
Chad
July 14, 2017
Bye Felicia
Anthony Dlugos
July 14, 2017
Why the Elmer Fudd accent on the way out the door?
This fusion of “anarcho-capitalism” [sic] with white nationalism and sympathy for the southern Confederacy is incongruous and unexplainable.
Indeed incongruous but not inexplicable. The primary architect died during his “paleo phase.” The gatekeepers bequeathed intellectual inheritance to a Frankfurt school critical theory postmodernist who has been busy rewriting Misean praxeology as something that requires a Christian caucasian social commitment to make sense. It also helps that this particular social commitment includes a rich tradition of handing money over to snake oil salesmen.
Gene Berkman,
Care to offer a time mark for where he says that?
Kevin S Bjornson
July 14, 2017
This fusion of “anarcho-capitalism” [sic] with white nationalism and sympathy for the southern Confederacy is incongruous and unexplainable. This man is mentally ill, with delusions of grandeur. He over-estimates his intellectual abilities. He has no chance of winning and has a reverse Midas touch (everything he touches is despoiled).
Then again he could just be a mentally ill racist piece of shit. Good riddance!
Andy
July 14, 2017
I was chatting with an online friend recently who commented that Augustus Sol Invictus is either a bad ass freedom fighter, or a paid government plant/actor.
Good riddance to bad rubbish and please take all the other Alt Knights with you.
Nope. It is you who is refuses to accept standard textbook definitions and then shifts the burden to somehow knock down your own version.
True. Of course, we are talking about borders, not boundaries.
Absolutely false. Nonsense.
No, I actually only claimed to have a University 102 Freshmen course knowledge of philosophy, where within such a course one would become familiar with Kant’s critiques of pure and practical reason.
Actually, I had a sufficient mathematical background to actually tackle Bertrand Russell’s Principia Mathematica.
RE: Objectivism: academic philosophy by and large ignores it. I certainly don’t subscribe to it. Rand, however, did have influence on me as a teenager. But it was primarily her novels, not her non-fiction stuff. Although I suppose I can admit that at 16-17 years old, I did think Kant was the devil. It didn’t stick, though.
I can simply cite the first paragraph of Benjamin Tucker’s “State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree & Wherein They Differ”
Machan writes like libertarians invented the definition of the state as the monopoly on violence. They didn’t.
Now you modify your statement, to assert that the state must merely [assert] it has a monopoly on [legitimate] violence. Any group can easily make assertions about their claims to legitimacy and territory. Every invasion or revolution makes that claim.
For instance,
–Islamic State claims the entire world
–Hitler and his henchmen made a claim to German territory
–A bunch of libertarians sitting around drinking beer and smoking joints can easily make whatever claims they want to.
And so on. Again I ask, name one state that meets even your revised definition.
You oppose states, which do have borders. Without states, there would be no borders. So, you must also oppose borders. Without borders, any moral claims would apply universally. Justice is a subset of morals. Therefore justice applies universally. Since you oppose borders, the system of justice you propose, would also apply universally. So, any organization of force which you propose to enforce justice, would have universal jurisdiction; and be a government, if not a state.
You claim to know the entire field of philosophy for the last two hundred years, Yet you cite as believers in the philosophy of liberty, Austrians (who got the philosophy part wrong) and monetarists (monetarism is not part of philosophy).
Obviously you aren’t aware of the philosophy of rational empiricism (advocated by most American logicians of the late 19th century, and also the early Bertrand Russel), precursor to Objectivism (which apparently you feel is not part of philosophy).
“anarchy” simply means, no rulers. Nothing about a “class” of rulers, which puts a Marxist spin to the definition. Please cite one dictionary which backs up your claim (unless you mean to invent a private language). Here is the origin of the word:
C16: from Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhia, from anarkhos without a ruler, from an- + arkh- leader, from arkhein to rule
From Tibor Machan:
http://www.strike-the-root.com/content/government-vs-state
Within libertarianism, though, the concept ‘government’ is still unstable. Anarcho-libertarians, who argue for something they dub ‘competing legal systems’ ‘or competing defense organizations,’ claim that the concept ‘government’ means, essentially, ‘a monopoly of legal services over a given territory.’ This isn’t as clear cut as one might wish. Are they talking about legally protected monopolies or monopolies plain and simple, which could mean very competitive organizations, indeed’for example, a department store sitting on a large piece of private property that has no competitor right then and there but is amply competed with by stores in the nearby vicinity? Yet where it stands, it’s a monopoly, in a sense. Or an apartment house’it too stands alone and to rent a competitor’s dwellings, one needs to move.
There are libertarians called minarchists, with whom I am usually linked’along with Ayn Rand, John Hospers, the late Robert Nozick and during the last few years of his life, Roy A. Childs, Jr. (although he also penned a famous piece, ‘The Contradiction in Objectivism,’ back in 1968, for Rampart Journal, in which he announced his dissent from Rand’s minarchist position). I disagree that governments may not compete and may coerce anyone. To be fair, neither did Ayn Rand agree that governments may coerce anyone’she, for example, denied that taxation is permissible while also claiming government is, thus disowning the characterization of government by perhaps the most famous anarcho-libertarian, Murray N. Rothbard.
But as Gallie’s point makes clear, this debate as to what is the most sensible, reasonable definition of ‘government’ is likely to continue for a long time, if not indefinitely. In my own view, for example, the institutions anarcho-libertarians support are governments in every important respect’they are administrators, maintainers, and protectors of bona fide law within human communities. What critics claim is that such administration, maintenance and protection do not require contiguous spheres of jurisdiction but could work as a sort of crisscross system.
From a few historical cases, in which such a system had been in place’in ancient Iceland, for example’these disputants conclude that as a general rule governments could operate quite happily, smoothly, with no judicial failures’such as inability to arrest prosecute criminals or to render effective service when citizens (or clients) seek police protection’serving crisscross localities. OK, so this is an interesting debate and worthy of pursuit. Either way we could get to government, however.
Okay, there are two…
Territorial monopoly on violence doesn’t mean the state is the only entity that commits violence. It means it territorially monopolizes that claim of the only legitimate use of violence or force.
What apparent acceptance of universal overlapping jurisdictions are you referring to?
No, I think you just clarified your position. I stand corrected on that matter, I suppose.
“no rulers” === “no ruling class, particularly no ruling class by arbitrary authority”
or a mere slight variance to accommodate liberal/individual anarchism interpretations
David Hume says hello. And you are ignoring the entire field of philosophy for the past 2 centuries starting w/ Kant who attempted to deal w/ the fallout from Hume.
The editor of “Modern Scientific Thought” takes seriously my view that the Greco-Romans created the modern era. He’s very prominent in Russia, as an economist and is frequently on Russian televsion. So obviously I am not alone in this.
Previous to the modern era, were the neolithic and paleolithic eras, which lasted much longer than the modern era (a blink of the eye). Prior to that were no known humans.
Obviously no estate has established a territorial monopoly of violence, or there would be no private violence, nor invasions nor revolutions. I pointed this out many times in my debate with SEK3. Cite one example where such a monopoly has been actually accomplished.
The US does claim universal jurisdiction, but most governments do not. How do you square your apparent acceptance of universal overlapping jurisdictions, with categorical anti-interventionism?
I don’t share Hobbes’ view of the estate of nature, which he claimed was characterized by a war of all against all. I maintain to the contrary, that organized wars didn’t start until after mankind left the estate of nature, and began to accumulate stored wealth, which became a target of gangs of thieves. You keep going around in circles within your own head, without really listening to what i’m saying.
Your definition of “anarchy” serves your own views, and is not supported by dictionaries. “anarchy” means no rulers, not no ruling class by arbitrary authority. Again you want to define all government as bad government.
The “ought” must be derived from (at least a portion of) the “is”. Otherwise, the ought would be derived from the is-not. However, something must come from something, and cannot come from nothing. Natural justice (the ought) is derived from human nature (the ideal portion of the is). Human progress is teleological and should strive for fulfillment of human potential. Humans are rational animals.
I invite you to try to setup your own little sovereign jurisdictional government within US jurisdiction to see what happens.
They by and large do have criss-cross universal jurisdiction.
Low priority means low priority, i.e, not really much of a target.
Not what I wrote…
I don’ t share your Hobbesian conclusions. If I did, I would have to side w/ Hobbes that the violence of the state of nature would merely be exported to the legislatures. That’s why his book was called Leviathan and not Parliamentarian Democracy. Resorting to a Hobbesian view of things is a cannon that also takes out constitutional, democratic government as nothing but a ruse for “organized plunder.”
True
Again, you are the first person that I know of who refers to Chapter 1 of “Western Civilization” textbooks as the start of the modern era.
Anarchy simply means no ruling class(in particular no ruling class by arbitrary authority) and implies a justice of mutual advantage. The law is heuristic law, which simply means, that which is found to work is what is used. If you deny that, I assure whatever concoction you come up w/ in terms of liberty will be at variance w/ both liberalism and libertarianism***. It’s why I’m particularly skeptical of natural law concoctions, as in your case, b/c I view them often as nothing but an excuse for a form of the naturalistic fallacy(what has been and what is==what ought to be…which is what I think you are doing here).
*** For example, Locke viewed the state of nature not as a war of all against all, but rather merely as a suboptimal state where defense of property == opportunity cost. The essential gist of Locke is the right to revolution.
No, I would go down w/ the ship, too. However, that’s not an argument for why it can’t or shouldn’t happen.
Territorial monopoly violence has never been achieved, cannot be achieved, and should not be achieved.
Though if on one side of a border there are many more who would do harm, those on the relatively safer side might be wise to side with the relatively better state.
Though I think ideally, governments should have criss-cross universal jurisdiction.
So, you still want to target SS retirement benefits, but on a lower priority? Why, so millions of retired folk, many of whom can no longer work to support themselves, could die a few years from now instead of right away? That’s not very reassuring to voters. I imagine similar applies to food stamps (EBT).
If you think Jus Naturale is exclusively a Roman concept, you aren’t really familiar with the Greco-Roman tradition. Jus Naturale developed as a synthesis of Roman common law and Stoic philosophy. The Greco-Romans did embrace territorial government (city-states) and we certainly have to start there, but theoretically this could evolve eventually into criss-cross universal jurisdictions (though of course this would completely demolish anti-interventionism and still would depend on some form of government).
How do you propose to counter organized plunderers, unless by organizing government by subscription in defense/retaliation? We must reject anti-interventionism, or otherwise every person would be a self-defense island.
The Enlightenment was a refinement of the Renaissance, which was a recapitulation of ancient civilization that had been suppressed by the Dark Ages. If we look at the entire span of human existence, at least hundreds of thousands of years (if not a million or more), obviously the Romans started the modern era and Stoics improved on the Roman system.
The modern world clearly had roots in part of the ancient world (which laid the foundations). Unfortunately, slavery marred the Greco-Roman system, discouraging industrialization, and this is a major factor in their downfall.
Since human liberty is based on human nature, I’d be very surprised if just in the last few hundreds years all of a sudden people discovered human nature. Since anarchy disappeared over 10,000 years ago, how do you propose to reinstate the estate of nature? Go back to hunting-gathering? Obviously, the agricultural and industrial revolutions created stored wealth, which led to organized plunder and organized defense against plunder.
I see. You’re willing to accept financial collapse, either because you have alternate methods already in place (I don’t trust Bitcoin and will never use it) or you have sufficient savings so you can retire (I don’t and can’t).
SO, how do you propose I stay in business, after the collapse of the banking system? I’m all ears.
“The state is the organization of plunder” is not a premise. It is a descriptive statement, a conclusion. Hitherto, there have been no exceptions. Your claim essentially boils down to: we must have a Gambino family b/c the Genovese family is worse. And, you know what, if the state actually acted like the mob, I might be inclined to concede your point. However, the state doesn’t act the like the mob. You pay the mob off to leave you alone. You pay the state off to harass you. It is this characteristic that turns the organization of plunder into a discretionary power maximizing firm. So, while I will concede that the state appears to be a normative(or natural) part of human reasoning, it’s behavior in practice is alien(that is, the citizens eventually become the enemy). It is for that reason I put an expiration date on the shelf life of this thing, the territorial monopoly of violence. To say that it is delusional to forecast the eventual end of the state is no more delusional than pointing out the Enlightenment/Renaissance ended the roughly 1000 year reign of the dark ages. So, let us toast to the Enlightenment 2.0.
This is a red herring. You keep bringing this up. To me, it’s a fallacious argument of the form” There can’t be disruption b/c there would be disruption.” I’m under no burden to centrally plan the mitigation of disruptive consequences. That being said, I have made it clear that hypothetical libertarian political power should not target the poor man’s plunder as a first priority. This actually stands in contrast to much of the “classical liberal” advocacy which often seems to want to make such targeting a first priority.
No, I’m certainly familiar with Jus Naturale(Roman conception of natural law) and Jus Gentium(customary law held in common internationally). It is just that the enlightenment(or modern) version of natural law was not the same as Cicero’s version(the philosopher usually associated with that Roman concept). And, as I have numerously pointed out before, enlightenment liberals drew a sharp demarcation between the modern(starting with the enlightenment) and the ancient. In contrast to, say, Cicero’s view of the state, a view that held the state to be a natural part of humanity(inheriting from the ancient/classical Greece view), liberalism only saw the state as an artificial tool. Once you view the state as an instrument or tool it is easy to see how something like anarchism could arise as a serious intellectual tradition under liberalism, natural law or not. You know, if you begin to see that tool is a particularly shoddy instrument. Whereas something like anarchism would be an anathema/unthinkable under Roman Jus Naturale.
No, Bastiat wasn’t an anarchist(I think he would have converted if he had lived long enough). However, his proclaimed intellectual protege certainly was.
The writers I listed are not obscure. Both liberalism and libertarianism are products of the enlightenment. You are in a distinct minority to view libertarianism as a product of the ancient world. You also occupy a particularly slim minority to view the modern world as something that apparently began 2000 years ago.
I agree that Austrian economics is not part of the Jus Naturale tradition, for the reasons I outlined above. Of course, I would also be remiss not to point out that I’m not a subscriber to Austrian economics.
Actually, I have a pretty good familiarity with the classic world. Although, off the top of my head, it would be philosophy more so than rote history. And Greece more so than Rome. I’m certainly not a scholar of the ancients, but I generally know enough to ask the right questions to quickly find what I need to find.
You, on the other hand, demonstrate a certain lack of clarity regarding the distinctions between the modern world and the ancient world, between liberal political philosophy and the classical view of politics. You declare authors obscure that should not be obscure to any educated libertarian. What is one to think of that?
Actually, I’m officer/partner in an IT business that relies exclusively on wire and card transfers, too. Whining that you would be negatively affected by disruption is not an argument that he status quo is thus necessary.
Obviously you know nothing about business. Now I am dependent on wire and card transfers, which go through the federal reserve system. To simply tear down the present banking system, would quickly bankrupt me, before your utopia could emerge.
The state can be used to organize plunder, but not all states are equal. If the relatively better states simply disbanded, that would leave worse states free to greater plunder. There is no way that all states or governments will simply disband, absent divine intervention; and to suppose otherwise, is a delusion of fools.
From an ideological viewpoint, not all governments are states. I favor rightful governments, but not states.
What you do propose to do about the millions of Americans now relying on SS retirement? Let the market do it’s work? How would that work, exactly? You can’t just wave a magic wand with the right labels and expect people to believe things will work out.
I never advocated Roman Law. What you think of as Roman Law, are the worst aspects (rarely if ever does history provide perfect examples) and especially Napoleanic Law.
Obviously you are not familiar with Jus Naturale and Jus Gentium. I recommend Henry Sumner Maine’s Ancient Law, chapter four in particular. Or you could read my treatise, which summarizes.
Nor have I advocated for a monopoly central banking system with fiat money. You haven’t been listening. To make an analogy; suppose all farms were state-owned. Would you be anti-farm, and favor their destruction–or would you want free enterprise farms to replace them, in an orderly manner (to avoid disruptions to the food supply)?
I’m a big fan of Bastiat. Though I don’t think he advocated for the complete abolition of government. Neither did Henry George, who supported taxation (a land tax), something I don’t advocate.
So I don’t think you can simply wave a list of mostly obscure, post-renaissance authors and assume people will believe you are their inheritor or that they or you are familiar with the ancient common law; and how that developed, with Stoic assistance, into the natural justice theory which built the modern world (about 2000 years ago).
Neither Austrian nor monetary economics are part of the Jus Naturale tradition. Austrians are interested in philosophy, but are mistaken in it; while monetarists are simply uninterested in philosophy.
By “classical” I mean, “ancient”. We are talking about different things. While I am familiar with most of the intellectual tradition you claim to be part of, you know nothing of it’s much earlier foundation.
The state is the organization of plunder. Indisputably true in practice.
I explicitly state above that I don’t consider “privatizing social security” to be the libertarian position.
The current political economy for finance would certainly grind to a halt. I don’t dispute that. However, I do dispute that a centralized money monopoly is a necessary condition for trade and banking. Nonsense.
Never heard of it.
I don’t dispute that classical libertarian represents true libertarianism. I simply dispute that classical libertarianism == Roman law.Libertarianism is a product of the enlightenment, not the ancient world.RE: authors to support my contention, I should shrug this off w/ a snide comment, but I’ll bite:
Off the top of my head:
Frederic Bastiat
Richard Cantillon
Charles Comte
Charles Dunoyer
Benjamin Constant
François Quesnay
Vincent de Gournay
Gustave de Molinari
Henry Thoreau
Benjamin Tucker
Lysander Spooner
Joseph Proudhon
Emma Goldman
Henry George
Voltairine de Cleyre
Joseph Dejacque
Lucy Parsons
The word “libertarian” was actually first used by Joseph Dejacque in his 1857 letter to Proudhon that accused Proudhon of being liberal but not libertarian(not surprising!) . Dejacque was in the United States at the time he wrote the letter, but he would return to his native France soon thereafter. Which brings me to a larger point at hand. Libertarianism is by and large an import from the French liberal tradition, a tradition that traces back to the French Physiocrats and ultimately to de Gournay’s translations of the Chinese Daoist philosophical tradition. The terms typically associated w/ libertarianism, laissez Faire, entrepreneur and bureaucracy, all originate from the French liberal tradition.
Anyone who has actually sat down and read Bastiat’s “Economic Sophisms” would scoff at trying to equate that with the “classical liberal” invention that later came out of the Mont Pelerin Society(Hayek, Friedman, Mises and Popper). For Bastiat, plunder occupies an ubiquitous centrality to his analysis. From the chapter “Two Systems of Ethics”
In the chapter “The Physiology of Plunder,” Bastiat goes as far as to define the practical use of economics to be the identification of plunder.
From the same chapter, Bastiat equates the effects of plunder on society to a mass delusion that best could analogized in modern terms to something like “The Matrix.”
That for sure ain’t classical liberalism. And while it’s true that Bastiat wasn’t an anarchist(he died too soon before he could convert. Bastiat was a bit of an outlier in that he grew more radical as he aged), his intellectual protege, Gustave de Molinari, was one. Molinari came up w/ the private defense stuff long before Rothbard managed to rediscover it.
I think it’s well on its way(if it continues on its current trajectory) to occupying a place in that historical pantheon. Who would you prefer to blame for the current state of affairs on the world stage, Lichtenstein?
There are legitimate functions of government, that is true in theory and practice. To suppose that liberty could flourish without organized protection, is a delusion and a major reason the LP is not getting traction.
Many millions of Americans are dependent on Social Security retirement; they have contributed to the system by paying SS taxes and planned their retirement accordingly. To imagine that most of them could simply re-join the work force isn’t realistic (many do not have children, and if they do, their children might not be able or willing to support them). SS retirement could be funded by sale of government land, which could be traded to insurance companies in exchange for their assuming SS liabilities.
If you don’t want to “privatize” government land, I suppose instead it could be salted by radioactive waste to prevent future use for any purpose, right?
The Federal Reserve Banking system now provides many essential functions, like clearing inter-state and inter-bank transactions. Without clearing, the US economy would quickly grind to a halt, so clearly this function needs to be “privatized”.
My treatise on Classical Libertarianism was published in the Russian academic journal, “Modern Scientific Thought”; an updated version is available on the Libertarian Defense Caucus website. My knowledge of this topic was not invented by me, but discovered by scholarship in preparation for my teaching at liberty camps in the former Soviet Union. Since the principles of liberty are based on natural law, it’s not surprising that many generations going back 2500 years resonate with it.
If you don’t think classical libertarian represents true libertarianism, please cite authors from previous centuries who agree with whatever it is you favor. I’m still not clear what that is, except a generalized angst over all government in general, with special emphasis on the US government (in your view, the worst gov’t in world history, right?).
FYI: I don’t consider “privatizing social security” to be the libertarian position. It may be the Cato position, but I consider Cato to be a GOP think tank. Libertarianism is not “privatize” existing state functions. That ends up being associated with “Black Water” crap…and rightly so, IMO. Plus, going after the poor man’s plunder should be the absolute lowest priority.
(1) Stick your finger in the wind(median voter theorem) is the absolute worst strategy for 3rd party politics. And its not an opinion. It’s in the political science literature.
(2) I would dispute your claim that “libertarian change” is any less popular than “Republican” change or “Democratic” change.
(3) Third party party politics only requires 1/3, not a majority. So, 10% or so only support drug legalization. But 60% support pot legalization. You have to be brain dead and devoid of a spine not to think you can’t work w/ that(or interpret that as a cautionary yellow light). Particularly in the context of 3rd party politics.
No one ever did beat Microsoft for the consumer desktop device market. However,
(1) Linux long ago supplanted Windows in the server farm
(2) Google did usurp Microsoft for the most used app on Microsoft’s own desktop device: Chrome
(3) Apple and Google turned the consumer desktop into a shrinking market in the overall general consumer device market.
So the obvious answer to MS dominance was to change the game: the creative destruction of new markets. Unfortunately, politics(at least in the US), is a winner take all game. Scientifically, this enforces a duopoly. Politics simply does not resemble a “market” in the usual meaning. Hence, market analogies fail. What you are left with(other than possibly party disintermediation opening up occasional opportunities at the local levels) is not “change the game,” but rather “change the narrative.” “Change the Narrative” does not necessarily require a purity of message, but it is certainly aided w/ consistency of message that is consistently differentiated from the status quo.
I see Bjornson is demonstrating his superior reading comprehension skills again. I obviously made no such claim. What I did point out–as a retort to your claim that the LP leadership is ignoring classical libertarianism–was that your version of classical libertarianism is subscribed to by no one except yourself. How you managed to twist that into the statement above–namely, that you are the only one critical of LP leadership– beats the heck out of me.
Just to elaborate…just because voters will run screaming to be wrapped in the loving arms of the Demopublicans if we strut around, proud as a peacock with a suggestion that we privatize social security now…it doesn’t mean we can’t actually get to that reality at some point down the line. But we gotta reach the voters where they are at now.
I don’t disagree with a lot of what you posted there.
However, I tend to think we Libertarians tend to WAY overestimate the amount of change voters…and nonvoters alike…will even consider, let alone vote for. Upset with the establishment? Sure. Ready to privatize social security and release all non-violent drug offenders. Not on your life. Not only is such epochal change not wanted now, it will never be demanded by anything more than the 1/2 percent baseline the LP typically gets.
There is plenty of data to back that up. Polls are regularly taken that include voters AND nonvoters. None of them ever show an appetite for the change we Libertarians wish to see.
So, getting to your analogy with Microsoft…if the flaws are attributes that people want, for whatever reason, I would certainly consider including them in my operating system. I’m not saying my product may be exactly alike, but there may be things people who buy computers want, even if they are design flaws. Its certainly possible to create a better o.s. constrained by the flaws the consumer demands.
Many or most voters are fed up with the establishment. They are tired of moderates and RINO’s. They are hungry for change, and upset that even when the GOP controls both houses and the presidency, serious reforms are still blocked. There is no way that the LP can compete for the establishment vote, that already belongs to the two majors.
To make an analogy; suppose you wanted to compete with the Microsoft operating system. Many people are upset with it but it still seems to dominate. Would you offer in competition, an operating system with the same flaws? Why would people buy your system, when it offers no advantages, and because of obscurity has compatibility issues?
Why should someone vote LP, when almost certainly it’s candidates will lose? The only possible reason is, the LP offers a clear vision of significant change, based on ideas. If LP candidates like GJ can’t even explain liberty philosophy when asked, and he will lose, why should people pay attention to him? They haven’t, despite that the 2016 election had record-high dissatisfaction with the two major candidates.
I don’t favor “anarcho-capitalism” [sic] for both ideological and marketing reasons. I understand the need to not come across as a kook. I’ve frequently criticized the LP for flaunting a flamboyant face, a which amounts to a persistent persona problem. We need to simplify the message, and resonate with voters in areas of strongest agreement.
“The fact remains, GJ is not a libertarian. At best, he’s a moderate. He has virtually no knowledge of the theory and many of his positions are unlibertarian”
“The fact remains, GJ is not a libertarian.
He’s a member of the Libertarian Party. In the arena of electoral politics, that’s all that matters.
“At best, he’s a moderate.”
Good. Voters aren’t interested in Ancapistan.
“He has virtually no knowledge of the theory…”
So what? Are you aware of the job he was running for? Anything more than the most rudimentary understanding of theory is unnecessary, verging on the counterproductive.
dl claims that criticism of LP leadership is coming from one person only–me. I guess that’s why Gary Johnson did so well in the last two elections, huh? I guess Austin Petersen and Wayne Root are figments of my imagination.
That reminds me of a Heinlein short story, about a man who was the center of everything. Cities don’t exist on their own, but are created as props for the central character. I didn’t know I was that important!
The fact remains, GJ is not a libertarian. At best, he’s a moderate. He has virtually no knowledge of the theory and many of his positions are unlibertarian.
Invictus is a pagan, so I don’t think he means “Christian.” It’s more likely that he rolls Christianity into being, along with Judaism and Islam, “three weeds from the same root.”
Well to be fair, your arc of classical libertarianism is heretical and advanced only by a school of one, namely yourself.
Yes, I’m fully aware that for some, “western civilization” has replaced “anglo saxon” as the preferred dog whistle for christian white caucasian.
My understanding of “western civilization” is completely different than that of Invictus.
The political aspects of Western civilization originated in the synthesis resulting from Rome’s conquest of Athens. Roman common law overlapped with portions of Stoicism, to form the theory of natural justice (Jus Naturale).
The philosophical aspects were mostly Greek. The best Greek philosopher was Aristotle.
Educated people at the time, were familiar with both aspects. Unfortunately, the printing press wasn’t then in use, only elites were so educated. The masses were mostly pagan, like Invictus.
Christianity appealed to pagans, it’s simple message could be communicated without books, and the christ dying on the cross theme saved them money (they no longer had to sacrifice animals, like the goats Invictus relishes).
Judaism can be considered a paleo-humanism, which influenced Stoicism. Christianity is a middle eastern import and should not be considered part of western civilization as classically defined.
Classical libertarianism went astray during the feudal era, when the non-interventionist theory distorted traditional understandings of Jus Naturale.
Foreign policy is relevant, because when western civilization is attacked by a foreign adversary, we can’t afford to ignore or minimize that.
These things are explained in greater detail in my treatise, which was originally published in a Russian academic journal dealing with modern scientific thought.
LP leadership has very little understanding of classical libertarianism. They are like blind-folded people stumbling through a library, with only a few glimmerings making it through their self-imposed blinds.
I should also note that as Invictus and his ilk use it “western civilization” (or “white race”) does not include Jews. I am of mostly Jewish ancestry, and the US regime considers me to be “white” but Invictus and his ilk do not. The same holds true of other peoples of Middle Eastern origin.
A major component of “western civilization” as conventionally understood is Christianity and its roots in Judaism, and Jews in diaspora have contributed a great deal to the philosophy, art, and other things that make up “western civilization,” but from the antisemitic perspective that is embedded in Invictus’ “revolutionary conservatism” Jews and Muslims alike are a cancer on “western civilization”; he openly discusses killing both Jews and Muslims, and writes that the US government’s failings include “fear of the Jews.” And his nonsense about “white genocide” is an insult to say the least to ethnic groups which have experienced actual genocide.
It’s a mistake to believe that Invictus’ references to “western civilization” are anything except a transparent euphemism for “white race.” In an email that was forwarded to me yesterday from Augustus Invictus to Raquel Okyay (the same one in which he issued threats against myself and others) dated June 3 2017 Invictus writes:
What do all these diverse people have in common, I wonder?
Please explain what reasons you found compelling and why you found them to be compelling.
Rare to read a treatment on western civilization divert to a presentation on contemporaneous geopolitical foreign policy strategy. Some might be inclined to thusly view the “western civilization” preamble as a pretext.
I assume everyone here has taken a course on “western civilization” in high school. This is not difficult. It is simply tracing a set traditions of philosophy, science, art, politics, law, ethics, etc back to ancient Greece. And It certainly is not simple cultural arc. For example, in religion, Greek philosophy had major impacts on both Christianity and Islam(Aristotle). The enlightenment or the renaissance was a rediscovery of sorts of the ancient greek philosophic tradition sans the intermediary religious authority that has accumulated over the reign of the dark ages. And it should be note the dark ages only ended b/c of the social upheaval brought about by the black plague.
Libertarianism/laissez faire doesn’t originate from the West. It originates from Chines philosophic tradition. It was translated into the West by the French physiocrats. Laissez faire is at odds with the social contract traced through Roman Law back to ancient Greece. Indeed, liberalism itself is at odds w/ that tradition. The greek tradition is what today we would call a much more a communitarian tradition. The state, the polis is a natural fabric in the moral orientation of human beings. Whereas liberalism holds the state to be an artificial construct, an invented tool. Something like anarchism was an anathema to Plato and Aristotle. However, in liberalism it is usually the starting point.
The one thing that should be a source of unanimity RE: western civilization is that it doesn’t require State protection. Anyone who argues otherwise is pining for the worst aspects of it. Conservatives who flap “western civilization” are certainly yearning for a return to the dark ages tradition of it.
Those are all great reasons to leave the Libertarian Party.
What doesn’t make sense here is why you’d join a party that welcomes so many people who do precisely the same things you say you left the Libertarian Party.
I’m surprised that they didn’t at least put “western civilization” in quotes. We all know what he really means.
Leftists “have infiltrated and corrupted” the L.P., the former Senate primary-election loser charges on his way out the door
Translated into reality: Reichwingers tried to infiltrate and corrupt the LP and failed miserably, sending their former Senate primary election loser on his overdue way out the door. Huzzah!
Defining “western civilization” is like defining human nature. Augustus seems to define the west according to some of it’s worst elements. With a few good features, to provide camouflage for his use of the LP as a vehicle for his psychodrama.
There is no way that libertarianism would be compatible with Plato’s notion of philosopher kings, even if the king were a white supremacist neo-nazi.
Neither does neo-paganism represent western culture, Paganism was/is to be found around the world, with no discernible affinity for reason. Even though in the estate of nature, of humans as hunter-gatherers, there was little government; but that was simply because there was little stored wealth that would give rise to the need for government protection.
Trump is a mixed bag and Augustus seems to identify with a parody of an image of the POTUS that does not truly reflect the man, or at least his better instincts. He is pretentious and is amazingly ignorant.
That being said, the LP leadership isn’t much better.
My treatise does define the political dimension of the birth of civilization in the west:
http://www.defendliberty.net
Thank you Andy for posting this item of interest to members of the Libertarian Party.
Matt Welch with Reason has written a post about the departure of Augustus Sol Invictus from the Libertarian Party. It has more truth in it than nine out of ten articles about Invictus. I think both supporters and detractors will find something of value in it should they read it. As of this moment the post has 57 comments.
Titled: Controversial Western Civilization Crusader Augustus Sol Invictus Bolts Libertarian Party for the GOP
Subtitled: Leftists “have infiltrated and corrupted” the L.P., the former Senate primary-election loser charges on his way out the door
http://reason.com/blog/2017/07/17/controversial-western-civilization-crusa
“Does anyone really care what this attention grabbing clown does? He is a non-event. He is truly insignificant to the LP which makes him even less significant to the GOP. He is truly a skid mark on the boxer shorts of life!”
You are probably right. I don’t think he is going to do anything significant, unless it’s some kind of horrible terrorist and/or criminal act(s).
Maybe he has different personalities. One is the charming, “normal” persona, one is the vacant-eyed nut, one is the fake accent orator, etc. He’s almost without any doubt at the very least a sociopath, combined with extreme narcissism (he named himself the majestic unconquerable Sun-God, etc), and quite possibly much more seriously mentally ill; but like other sociopaths, he knows how to hide the craziness and put on an engaging, functional persona when it suits him. I don’t think he has any bright political future in any party, but I could easily see him pulling off another Oklahoma City type of bombing or something of that nature. The allegations of domestic violence and rape have not been proven true, but those allegations were not surprising in any way and if they do turn out to be true that will not be a surprise either.
—–
I’m told [Augustus Invictus] beyond weird in person, verging on disturbed. “Vacant eyes” I’ve heard more than once.
—–
He didn’t strike me that way at all. When he’s not engaged in public oratory, he’s an engaging and friendly guy. Or at least he was with me.
It was never Augustus Invictus as an individual who needed to be defeated, or distanced from the LP. It was the ideas he supports. And while attacking him as an individual can be both personally satisfying, and effective in the short term and specific situation, he’s fairly inconsequential and it’s those ideas that have to be defeated.
Same here, although I have not been doing it lately, but I collected easily in the 5-figure range of data points (individual results) on it going back as far as at least 1992. I may have actually helped some LPers with running it at their booth even before that, back before I was one myself, but I can’t remember for sure. In any case in the 1990s and early 2000s the typical distribution was maybe 15-25% libertarian quintile. The smaller number of times I have done it more recently, it does not seem to have changed much, although there is somewhat less unfamiliarity with the term and less surprise when people score libertarian (although the surprise still happens, only less often).
In some places I tend to get a slightly higher l-quintile distribution. At colleges, the single biggest cluster I noticed was always around the left-center-libertarian border but still plenty not even close to L-quintile. At guns shows the biggest cluster was right-center-libertarian. Those were my biggest go to spots for signatures and I often did the quiz in conjunction with petitioning. I did go to a bunch of county fairs and other similar events too, and there the biggest cluster often tends to be a big column up the middle from top to bottom, with smaller concentrations on the left and right.
My memory is a long way from perfect, but at the moment I can’t recall anywhere other than a libertarian event where I got over say 40% or so in the libertarian quintile.
Does anyone really care what this attention grabbing clown does? He is a non-event. He is truly insignificant to the LP which makes him even less significant to the GOP. He is truly a skid mark on the boxer shorts of life!
Petersen is bouncing back and forth too many times to retain credibility on either end of the bounce. Invictus has no credibility to begin with, so there’s nothing to lose.
Yep. TLR is reporting that Augustus has officially left the L.P.
my worry is that Petersen and/or A.I. could both come back, although I think Petersen would be more likely,
I’ve administered the WSPQ at countless county fair booths. Less than 25% identify in the libertarian quadrant.
The reason you people have a problem is becuase your silly little political test tells everyone theyre libertarian.
Yes, it is!
I don’t expect him to become any kind of star in the NSGOP. Hopefully he won’t come back to the LP ever again.
Augustus is correct in pointing out that the Libertarian Party failed to produce a libertarian ticket but he’s wrong that Austin Petersen was the right choice. It is nice to see the conservatives tiring of the LP and I hope the same will be true for the Democrats that seem to be attracted now for some reason. Reform your own parties. Stop mucking things for those of us that actually care.
paulie,
“Normally that would be the case. But the stench of fascism around Drumpf did not lead to him being shown the door; quite the opposite.”
Trump had 100% name recognition, 40 years spent crafting a phony-baloney populist message, several billion dollars, a series of golddigger high-profile wives, and so on. For all that, the GOP was willing to cut him a lot of slack with regard to his nationalist flirtations. Obviously, Goat Blood doesn’t bring any of those prerequisites to the table.
He’ll learn soon enough how wedded the GOP is to soft-core fascism and how wedded it is to doing/saying whatever it takes to win. It’ll happen about that time they use his head as a battering ram and throw him out into the alley through the side door.
“Interesting that Augustus does this around the same time that Austin Petersen left for the GOP. Coincidence?”
That’s what I was wondering about. I haven’t heard anything about the alt-reich losing their grip on LPFL, so it is strange that he decides to do this now, days after AWP does the same. Goat Blood Boy is not actually taking advice/following the lead of the AWP, is he?
In any case, I hope Elmer Fudd Invictus doesn’t get his hopes up. There might be a market for AWP’s righty libertarianism. He might be able to land a job on The Blaze or something. There’s no market for what appears to be a fascist with sociopathic mannerism.
ATPR just got it, Richard.
https://amthirdpartyreport.com/2017/07/15/larry-sharpe-announces-run-for-ny-governorship-as-a-libertarian/
Interesting that Augustus does this around the same time that Austin Petersen left for the GOP. Coincidence?
But nevertheless still, good riddance. The more such alt-right plants leave for the GOP, the better.
I believe Larry Sharpe has announced his intention to seek the New York Libertarian gubernatorial nomination. I hope if that is true that IPR does a story on that.
And it’s not like this should be news to Andy, as it has been posted in multiple past threads. You have to be deliberately ignorant to ignore that level of proof. Simple thick headedness does not even begin to explain it.
Fine. Since Andy wants to keep debating what has already long been settled beyond the shadow of any doubt:
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2017/05/chuck-moulton-lp-conventions-avoid-alt-right-white-supremacist-event-speakers/#comment-1606612
Here is a video of a speech Augustus recently gave to the Queens Libertarians in New York City. Note that Larry Sharpe can be seen in the audience during this speech, and that early in his speech, Augustus compliments Mr. Sharpe, and says that he’s a fan of his (or something to that effect).
Augustus Invictus: Address to the Queens Libertarians
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-aoOZAdYfs
Regardless of any of the merits or demerits of Augustus Sol Invictus, I can’t see him being nominated to any office by the Republican Party, except for maybe some low level office, but I am skeptical that they would even nominate him to run for a low level office. I’d say that his chances of being nominated by the Republican Party are lower than Austin Petersen’s chances of winning the Republican US Senate primary in Missouri, and Austin Petersen’s chances are pretty damn low in that race.
Exactly.
Normally that would be the case. But the stench of fascism around Drumpf did not lead to him being shown the door; quite the opposite. I think the Republicans may well be headed (further) in that direction than ever before. It’s not surprising that a fascist like Invictus is drawn to their party.
Indeed.
I hope so but I suspect he is the kind of turd that will keep floating back up, stubbornly refusing to go down the drain at the bottom of the toilet bowl as he should.
That’s complete nonsense. Invictus was literally a card carrying member of the National Socialist Movement and still makes speeches at their rallies, among many other racist groups he addresses on a regular basis. You degrade yourself by defending this piece of shit.
That’s because he is.
Formerly married, and he would be far from the only racist who has had interracial relationships.
His actual political platform is a lot more than one issue platform on a website. There are numerous articles, speeches, videos etc of him spouting fascist, racist shit, calling himself a fascist, making speeches to racist groups, etc, etc, etc. It has been documented here in great detail more times than I can count, and you should know this by now.
Again…so what? Bigotry is a complex phenomenon. People are not cartoons. The fact that Invictus is a racist is a fact, not an allegation.
No, don’t let irrelevant bullshit like videos of him reading to his daughter get in the way of the facts.
Why would it be any different than in print? I’ve discussed political issues with you in person and it’s no different than online. The only difference in person is that it’s hard to get a word in edgewise a lot of the time. I pause a lot when I speak and you jump in before I have finished my sentence, much less my thought. Why do you think that debating you in person is any more convincing to the audience than doing so in print?
No. Why would I waste my time?
Yes, he dates/marries non”white” women. Newsflash: so do lots of other racists.
Andy 2017/07/14 at 10:53 am TL; DR. I have documented in great detail how Invictus is a racist, fascist, bigoted piece of shit – now, not just in the past, and definitely, not just maybe – in multiple past threads. I don’t care to argue about it again. Reread past IPR Invictus threads if you have any doubts.
The Republican Party doesn’t want him either.
paulie wrote (7/14/2017 at 01:29):
Agreed! I hope the door hits him on the way out. Take Ramsey and the rest of the alt-right with you please.
On another note, I find it amazing that Andy continues to say wildly rascist things, then act shocked when people point out the rascism.
Tony From Long Island
July 14, 2017 at 12:58
Andy
Ironically, the political positions of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are closer to being Nazi
*sigh* you are a truly sick man. How have you lasted this long in life without being involuntarily institutionalized?
……..
Pot, meet kettle.
Thane, watch @ 1:25
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPXHRX8Q2hs
Andy
*sigh* you are a truly sick man. How have you lasted this long in life without being involuntarily institutionalized?
“Jill Pyeatt
July 14, 2017 at 12:12
This is an extremely weird guy. I couldn’t even finish the 8 minute video, mainly because of his ridiculous fake accent.
Good riddance. I predict his 15 minutes of fame in politics is way over.”
A lot of people have said the same thing about his accent (which sounds forced, or exaggerated, if not completely fake), myself included.
Since he became a big topic here on IPR over the last 6 or 7 months or so, I have watched a lot of his videos. If nothing else, I think he’s entertaining.
Jill,
I’m told he’s beyond weird in person, verging on disturbed. “Vacant eyes” I’ve heard more than once.
The irony of the situation is that he seems to think he’s gonna find a more sympathetic ear in the GOP. The reality is Republicans (and Democrats, for that matter), are far less tolerant of anything that doesn’t help them win. They don’t put up with childish coffee house debates about who is and who is not a Republican when they come from the mentally deranged. Once they get a whiff of his fascism, he’ll be shown the door with prejudice.
Seriously, I predict he’ll show up here in Los Angeles, thinking he can make it as one of those people who are famous because they’re famous (like the Kardashians). They’ll eat him alive.
This is an extremely weird guy. I couldn’t even finish the 8 minute video, mainly because of his ridiculous fake accent.
Good riddance. I predict his 15 minutes of fame in politics is way over.
Ironically, the political positions of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are closer to being Nazi than the political positions espoused by Augustus Invictus. Augustus never proposed a secret government enemies list to deny people the right to purchase firearms, unlike Johnson/Weld. Augustus did not support the war on Iraq, or the Patriot Act, like Bill Weld did. Unlike Johsnon/Weld, who only called for taxing and regulating marijuana, but keeping the rest of the War on Drugs going as it is, Augustus Invictus called for an end to the entire War on Drugs.
yes…
“Tony From Long Island
‘July 14, 2017 at 11:24
Andy:
Check out this clip of Augustus reading Odysseus in the Land of the Dead with his daughter (who looks Hispanic).’
What the hell does what his daughter “looks like” have to do with anything? You continue to paint yourself as a xenophobe and then get all self-righteous when you are called on it.”
Augustus was labeled as being a “racist” and a Nazi multiple times, yet he brought up that he was married to a brown skinned Hispanic woman, and that he had part Hispanic kids. I was just posting a video clip I found of Augustus reading with his daughter, because I don’t think that most people here have seen his daughter. His actual political platform was also quite libertarian, certainly far from being a Nazi platform.
Also, note that in the video that starts this thread, he said that he voted for Larry Sharpe to be the LP’s VP nominee. Since Sharpe is half black this also flies in the face of the allegation that Augustus is a horrible racist.
Andy:
Your Johnson obsession continues . . . .
Your daily conspiracy crap belies that first point . . . . .still using the tired old “let’s debate” nonsense. . . .
Tony.
“What the hell does what his daughter “looks like” have to do with anything?”
That’s what I was wondering about until I realized it was Andy posting the comment.
Andy,
No 9/11 Troofer debates for me. I’m going to a Alaskan Brewing Company Tap takeover at a local brewhouse.
Andy:
What the hell does what his daughter “looks like” have to do with anything? You continue to paint yourself as a xenophobe and then get all self-righteous when you are called on it.
“Anthony Dlugos
July 14, 2017 at 11:09
‘Check out this clip of Augustus reading Odysseus in the Land of the Dead with his daughter (who looks Hispanic).’
a) I’m not gonna give that moron any clicks.”
So don’t let facts get in the way of a good smear.
“b) ‘some of my best friends are black’ says the racist.”
So are you alleging that Augustus hates his daughter?
“Anthony Dlugos
July 14, 2017 at 11:01
Andy,
He’s not a government plant. He’s a sad. demented nut, much like yourself, no offense intended. You’re welcome to show yourself out the door with him and the other alt-reichers, wackadoodle conspiracy theorists, and palecons.”
I am not a “sad, demented nut,” nor am I a conservative.
If you would like the opportunity to engage me in political debate, I am in Ohio right now. So perhaps we can get together somewhere, and have a political debate, to be placed on video and posted online, and we can let the public decide who is more libertarian.
“This is the respectable party of Gary Johnson and William Weld now.”
LOL!!!!
“Check out this clip of Augustus reading Odysseus in the Land of the Dead with his daughter (who looks Hispanic).”
a) I’m not gonna give that moron any clicks.
b) “some of my best friends are black” says the racist.
Check out this clip of Augustus reading Odysseus in the Land of the Dead with his daughter (who looks Hispanic).
Odysseus in the Land of the Dead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAhX3bkFG0k&t=15s
Andy,
He’s not a government plant. He’s a sad. demented nut, much like yourself, no offense intended. You’re welcome to show yourself out the door with him and the other alt-reichers, wackadoodle conspiracy theorists, and palecons.
This is the respectable party of Gary Johnson and William Weld now.
Paul said: “I wouldn’t rule it out. The racist movement, of which Invictus is a part, is crawling with them. But, if he’s not, he’s certainly still not a ‘badass freedom fighter’ (LOL).”
If Invictus were a government plant, I don’t see why he’d join the Republican Party. Maybe I am wrong, but I just don’t see any upside to this for the government, as from their perspective, it would seem to me to be better to have him operating in third party movements.
This leads me to think that maybe he’s just a bit of an eccentric, with a flair for the dramatic, and maybe not a bad guy, as in spite of all of the hysteria against him, his platform was not bad. End the drug war, end the Federal Reserve System, end the income tax, support gun rights, end military imperialism, withdraw from the United Nations, etc… These were all issues that he espoused. His platform was certainly a lot more libertarian than that of Gary Johnson and Bill Weld. Also, note that in the video above, he said that the presidential ticket for the LP in 2016 should have been Austin Petersen/Larry Sharpe. I am not exactly one of the biggest fans of Austin Petersen, but he certainly would have been better than Johnson, and Sharpe was way better than Weld.
Talking about “sacrificing” a goat sounded weird (I would not advise any candidate to wave around their religious views/practices, whether they are considered to be “mainstream” or not), but I bought some lamb at a grocery store, and I “sacrificed” it on my George Foreman Grill last night, along with some mushrooms (non-psychedelic), asparagus, and green onions, and some raw garlic and red onion, washed down with a cold New Holland Brewing Dragon’s Milk Stout. Am I any better a person because I bought the lamb from a grocery store, where other people had killed it, cut it up, and packaged it, than a person who killed their own food?
Much was made about him supporting a forced eugenics program, yet in reality, this was a view that he had abandoned years ago, and his actual position was that the existence of the welfare state creates a perverse set of incentives that punishes responsible and talented people from breeding via taxation to subsidize the breeding habits of the less responsible and less talented, and that this is an argument to call for the elimination of the welfare state. I would certainly agree that a government forced eugenics program is not inline with libertarian principles, but Augustus NEVER called for a government forced eugenics program while in the Libertarian Party, he called for ending the welfare state, which eliminates the perverse set of incentives and negative effects of taxpayer funded breeding.
If Augustus is to be demonized and held accountable for a view that he abandoned before he was in the Libertarian Party, then everyone who ever held any views that were contrary to libertarian principles ought to be held to the same standard. There are very few people who started their political journey as libertarians, due to the fact that the government dominated education system, the mainstream media, and most of society in general, programs people from a young age to NOT be a libertarian. I have also heard plenty of people espouse issue stances that I consider to be less than libertarian, who did this as ACTIVE MEMBERS of the Libertarian Party, some have even been candidates or party officers.
I had originally written Augustus off as a nut, with his talk of having sacrificed a goat, and dancing naked in the woods under the moon, and taking LSD and seducing strippers, along with his strange accent (he sounds like a Southern plantation owner/aristocrat from the 1800’s), frequent use of black and white video, and for having changed his name from his birth name of Austin Gallespie to the Roman sounding Augustus Sol Invictus. I thought that if he was not a nut, that perhaps he was a government plant, who was sent in to cause disruption, and to act crazy and make Libertarians look bad. I have not met him in person, but I have talked to some people who have met him, like Steve Sheetz, and people I have talked to who have met him said that he did not come off as a bad guy in person, and the overall impression I heard from those who have met him has been positive.
The jury is still out for me when it comes to Augustus Invictus, but after looking at him more closely over the last few months, and actually listening to what he has to say, rather than listening to the hysteria against him, I think that it is possible that he has been misunderstood and unfairly demonized (this does NOT mean that I agree with him on every detail of every issue, as I probably do not agree with anyone on every detail of every issue, and I do have some disagreements with Augustus Invictus). I DO STILL HOLD OUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT HE COULD BE A GOVERNMENT PLANT WHO WAS SENT IN TO CAUSE DISRUPTION AND BEHAVE IN AN ECCENTRIC MANNER, but it is also possible that he’s just an eccentric, dramatic person, as in maybe this is just his personality.
paulie,
“One small request, can he take Ryan Ramsey with him as he leaves?”
I was thinking the same thing. We can only hope.
I am curious about the timing here. Does anyone know why he did this now? Is he really taking tactical political advice from Petersen.
Ugh. Didn’t realize Hoppe was that prominent now. He defiles the concept of radical decentralization with his open bigotry. Just ran into and interview with him about it today. Well, at least I’ve start secession.net in wordpress, even if it’s just one little page. One day at a time… going through my massive database right now…
Will definitely have listing of “good” libertarian decentralist type groups and another of “bad boys” which will include hoppe and friends, among others. Keep your stupid bigotry to yourself. One can be into freedom of association without blaring who you don’t want to associate with all over the internet. Geez…
“Well, well, well! The LP of Florida’s loss is the Grand Ol’ Party’s loss. ”
I would say and assume you also meant the LPF’s gain is the GOP’s loss.
You got the first one right Carol, but the second one is Hoppe. Rockwell has certainly played a big role in facilitating all this as well.
I assume you mean Rothbard and Rockwell?
Pretty sure he means Rothbard and Hoppe.
DL wrote: “The primary architect died during his “paleo phase.” The gatekeepers bequeathed intellectual inheritance to a Frankfurt school critical theory postmodernist who has been busy rewriting Misean praxeology as something that requires a Christian caucasian social commitment to make sense. It also helps that this particular social commitment includes a rich tradition of handing money over to snake oil salesmen.”
I assume you mean Rothbard and Rockwell? If not do tell for those of us who aren’t quite sure….
Ramsey must be disappointed actual libertarians largely ignored his call to move the LP CON 2018 to Vicksburg to respect the confederacy. ha ha ha
Well, well, well! The LP of Florida’s loss is the Grand Ol’ Party’s loss. I wonder how the Altamonte Springs Fl police investigations into AI’s kidnapping, sexual assault and domestic violence accusations are coming along.
Why not? LOL.
I wouldn’t rule it out. The racist movement, of which Invictus is a part, is crawling with them. But, if he’s not, he’s certainly still not a “badass freedom fighter” (LOL).
One small request, can he take Ryan Ramsey with him as he leaves?
And now it has gone all the way down the drainpipe of the absurd to pagan neofascism.
Andy: ” . . . .Augustus Sol Invictus is . . . . . a paid government plant/actor.. . .. :
*sigh* . . . . Paranoia may destroy ya.
He still fails to denounce him . . .
Bye Felicia
Why the Elmer Fudd accent on the way out the door?
Indeed incongruous but not inexplicable. The primary architect died during his “paleo phase.” The gatekeepers bequeathed intellectual inheritance to a Frankfurt school critical theory postmodernist who has been busy rewriting Misean praxeology as something that requires a Christian caucasian social commitment to make sense. It also helps that this particular social commitment includes a rich tradition of handing money over to snake oil salesmen.
Gene Berkman,
Care to offer a time mark for where he says that?
This fusion of “anarcho-capitalism” [sic] with white nationalism and sympathy for the southern Confederacy is incongruous and unexplainable. This man is mentally ill, with delusions of grandeur. He over-estimates his intellectual abilities. He has no chance of winning and has a reverse Midas touch (everything he touches is despoiled).
So now he says “Don’t be stupid, be a smarty! Come and join The Grand Old Party!”
Then again he could just be a mentally ill racist piece of shit. Good riddance!
I was chatting with an online friend recently who commented that Augustus Sol Invictus is either a bad ass freedom fighter, or a paid government plant/actor.
Thank you, if you have departed the LP.