Clarification of Principles

Don’t Call Yourself a Libertarian

Just another reason why one shouldn’t call themselves a libertarian if one actually believes in the writings of Rand and others, because the term has been hijacked. I prefer the term right-wing rationalism.

But isn’t that just anarcho-capitalism? Why do we need more labels.

Imagine an equilateral triangle with the vertices labeled ‘mainstream conservative’, ‘far-right’, and ‘libertarian’ [1]. Now what if you don’t fall squarely in one of those categories–what about being somewhere between ‘far-right’ and ‘libertarian’, but furthest from ‘mainstream conservative’. So this is not anarcho-capitalism, but perhaps something resembling minarchism. Like the far-right, it acknowledges individual biological differences, IQ, and other aspects of HBD, opposes democracy, and it supports HBD-based policy. But unlike libertarianism, it is not fixated on personal/individual rights (not a bleeding heart), rejects the concept of the sovereignty of the individual, and it rejects moral relativism, preferring moral realism instead. Also, it doesn’t seek to ‘end the fed’ or return to the gold standard, nor does it subscribe to Austrian economics, preferring neoclassical economics but within a right-wing governing system that rejects the social and democratic aspects of classical liberalism. An example is Pinochet, who borrowed his economic policy from the Chicago school of economics, but obviously was not a leftist. Although it is sympathetic to neoreacton, it doesn’t have to be an absolutist Catholic monarchy, nor as theoretical as a Neocameralism. ‘Rationalist’ describes the epistemic and ontological approach to the system. Rationalism in this context means a scientific and evidenced-based approach to problem solving and policy.

The biggest problems facing society are entitlement spending and social decay. Out of control immigration and the decline of cohesive communities exacerbate these problems, and both arise from classical liberalism. The problem is the current system of government is inherently dysfunctional, and although the private sector is strong, wouldn’t it be better if the government were as competent as companies (obviously, as libertarians note, the government doesn’t have to compete; companies do and thus have an incentive to be competent for the sake of survival). Libertarianism and classical liberalism are inadequate; neither is ‘mainstream conservatism’. All of these fail to concentrate power–and unless power is defined, absolute, and concentrated–social and political decay is inevitable. Even ‘rule of law’ is insufficient, if the laws themselves are are predicated on nonsense. Even divine law is not perfect either, because it’s heavily subject to interpretation and amendment. There’s now a push in Saudi Arabia to allow women to drive; if this passes, you can guarantee there will be more (give an inch, they take a mile). In fact, its already happening. The Constitution of the United States, for example, merges natural law and divine law, and obviously have been heavily amended since its ratification. The courts, too, have the power to undo law. A solution to this problem eludes me.

[1] Like a fractal, each of the vertices of the original triangle can spawn another triangle, each with three more categories/vertices, for a total of 9 sub-categories:

libertarians: minarchists, anarcho-capitalists, and civil libertarians; ‘mainstream right’: neocons, traditional conservatives, and Christian right; far-right: alt-right, neoreaction, and paleoconservatism