Some interesting thoughts from a poster on the LeftLibertarian list

...as I see it, the main issue is the age-old problem of
power. Weld any value system together with concentrated, coercive
power and the results can be lethal.

Christianity + Power=Inquisition
Englightenment + Power=Jacobinism
Liberalism + Power=State-Capitalism
Socialism + Power=Bolshevism
Nationalism + Power=Fascism/Nazism
Islam + Power=Saudi Arabia
Cultural Leftism + Power=Totalitarian Humanism
(on this last one, see http://www.rosenoire.org/essays/3rdtotal.php

Another issue is that most people prefer identity and security over
liberty in the abstract sense. Most people would rather live in a
statist, even totalitarian, system with others "like themselves"
(culturally, religiously, racially, linguistically, etc.)than in a
libertarian system where no one else shares their cultural outlook.

Individuals and groups are by nature different and difference
inevitably breeds conflict. A major problem with much modern
political philosophy is that it fails to recognize that the Other
will always exist in some form or another. I can attest to this from
having spent a considerable amount of time around divergent cultural
groups: Christian fundamentalists, rednecks, hippies, leftists,
anarchists, militiamen, Muslims, libertarians, racists, drug users,
prostitutes, gangsters, convicts, suburbanites, blacks and many
others.

Intolerance seems to me to run through all social groups and I can't
really say that it's all that more extreme from one group to the
next. I've often found that leftists are often as narrow-minded as
Christian fundamentalists, that anarchists can be just as hateful
towards outsiders as racists, that minorities can be just as racist
as whites, that the cultural left can be just as authoritarian as the
right. Take note:

http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/103026.shtml
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/
08/30/sacrificing_truth_on_the_altar_of_diversity/

I suspect the "intolerance ratio" probably works something like
Pareto's 80/20 principle. All cultural groups probably maintain a set
level of intolerance irrespective of their external beliefs and
practices.

Another problem with advancement of any kind of libertarianism is
that the evidence from social psychology demonstrates that most
people have a rather limited capacity for independence of thought or
action beyond that of their primary reference group. I used to get
dismayed, for example, at the identitarian tribalism that many in the
left-anarchist milieu often display. It seemed to me to be
incompatible with the idea of the autonomous individual. Here's some
works by Joe Peacott that discuss this:

world.std.com/~bbrigade/badpp3.htm
world.std.com/~bbrigade/badpp2.htm
www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/socin/socin029.htm

Eventually, I realized that this kind of thing is just a matter of
human nature and exists in all groups. There's also the matter of the
insights from modern elite theory (Pareto, Michaels, Mosca) that
indicate all systems of any size will always be oligarchies
regardless of their outward forms or formal institutional mechanisms.
I also tend towards an idea that I call "hierachy of personalities",
meaning that individuals who are capable of rising above the herd are
exceedingly rare and constitute a type of natural aristocracy (in the
Nietzschean,Stirnerite or Jungerian rather than Kirkian or De
Maistreian sense). Not in the sense of race, economic position or any
of that but in terms of individual
psychological/intellectual/intuitive frameworks.

What are the implications of this for libertarianism? Minus the
coercive apparatus of the state, the alliance of state and capital
that tends to herd people about economically and the use of state-
controlled media and education to promulgate the offical value
system of the ruling class (whether Marxism, WASP nationalism or
multiculturalism), people tend to group off in kind under the
leadership of their own internal elites. This is frequently done on
an ethnic basis, obviously, but too assign too much importance to
ethnicity is to court reductionism. There's also culture, religion,
economics, etc. For example, a black guy who is some kind of gun nut
might be happier around frequently racist but firearms loving whites
than among racism-hating but gun-hating blacks and white liberals. A
white Christian evangelical might prefer to be around Christian
evangelical blacks than whites with the religious views of Bertrand
Russell or H.L. Mencken.

A major error that modern liberation movements (civil rights,
feminists, gay, etc.) have made is to adopt the liberal-Marxist
paradigm of militant integrationism to be achieved via the coercive
apparatus of the state. I don't think this kind of thing is in the
best long-term interests of either the outgroups or the host society.
A better approach is separatism, sovereignty and self-determination.
For example, I think black communities would be in better condition
today if the civil rights movement had listened to true
revolutionaries like Malcolm X, Elijah Muhammed or, previously,
Marcus Garvey than easily coopted reformers like Dr. King, whose
liberal-progressive/coercive-integrationist were most compatible with
the interests of the state and the corporate elite than those
of "extremists" like Malcolm.

The same is true of other similar issues. Here's how Americans For
Self-Determination puts it:

"But a true democracy should make space for all sorts of social
subgroups, when it's called for. These need not be separate states
necessarily, merely some space for each group to call its own. Take
for example, the Amish, whose lifestyle seems eccentric to most of
us. They have found a place in society because they have found
physical spaces where they can live unmolested. Government should
always make it possible for such religious sects to carve out some
turf, be it a neighborhood, a small town, or a county.

Other, non-religious groups might benefit from their own territories
as well. Radical feminists may want Amazon colonies, with no men
allowed. Gays often congregate in gay neighborhoods. Why not make
those areas official with clearly delineated boundaries and local gay
government and police forces? Genuine diversity would make our
country a rich and colorful garden of contrasts."

I suspect a "unity of separatists" approach of this type might be the
best method of attacking Leviathan.

noon8window.pdf (36 Bytes)

Dear Starchild;

Nice cogent thoughts articulated nicely. On Malcolm X vs. Dr. MLK
Jr. you are alos very right on the major differences between the
two. MLK wanted to use the system( government ) to help black people
Malcolm X said we got to do it ourselves.

If you or anyone else has not done so get and read : The
Autobiography Of Malcolm X he lays out his life warts and all -
nothing held back - and it is a very interesting read.

buy from Amazon here:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=br_ss_hs/102-2558222-7453757?
platform=gurupa&url=index%3Dstripbooks%3Arelevance-
above&keywords=Autobiography+of+Malcolm+X&Go.x=9&Go.y=11

For more on Dr. MLK and what happened there is the triology written
by Taylor Branch:

Parting The Waters The King Years 1954 - 1963

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/102-2558222-7453757?url=search-
alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=PArting+the+Waters&Go.x=10&Go.y=13

Pillar of Fire : America in the King Years 1963-65

http://www.amazon.com/Pillar-Fire-America-1963-65-
Paperback/dp/0684848090/sr=1-3/qid=1157993538/ref=pd_bbs_3/102-
2558222-7453757?ie=UTF8&s=books

At Canaan's Edge: America in the King Years, 1965-68

http://www.amazon.com/At-Canaan-Edge-America-
Hardcover/dp/068485712X/sr=1-1/qid=1157993538/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-
2558222-7453757?ie=UTF8&s=books

Special Note: if you want to buy these books go the the LPSF site
and the section on books to buy. Go to Amazon through the section
and buy the books and the LPSF will receive a referral fee paid to
the LPSF treasury.

The URL's above should make this happen.

Ron Getty
SF Libertarian

...as I see it, the main issue is the age-old problem of
power. Weld any value system together with concentrated, coercive
power and the results can be lethal.

Christianity + Power=Inquisition
Englightenment + Power=Jacobinism
Liberalism + Power=State-Capitalism
Socialism + Power=Bolshevism
Nationalism + Power=Fascism/Nazism
Islam + Power=Saudi Arabia
Cultural Leftism + Power=Totalitarian Humanism
(on this last one, see http://www.rosenoire.org/essays/3rdtotal.php

Another issue is that most people prefer identity and security over
liberty in the abstract sense. Most people would rather live in a
statist, even totalitarian, system with others "like themselves"
(culturally, religiously, racially, linguistically, etc.)than in a
libertarian system where no one else shares their cultural outlook.

Individuals and groups are by nature different and difference
inevitably breeds conflict. A major problem with much modern
political philosophy is that it fails to recognize that the Other
will always exist in some form or another. I can attest to this

from

having spent a considerable amount of time around divergent

cultural

groups: Christian fundamentalists, rednecks, hippies, leftists,
anarchists, militiamen, Muslims, libertarians, racists, drug users,
prostitutes, gangsters, convicts, suburbanites, blacks and many
others.

Intolerance seems to me to run through all social groups and I

can't

really say that it's all that more extreme from one group to the
next. I've often found that leftists are often as narrow-minded as
Christian fundamentalists, that anarchists can be just as hateful
towards outsiders as racists, that minorities can be just as racist
as whites, that the cultural left can be just as authoritarian as

the

right. Take note:

http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html
http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2004/02/103026.shtml

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006
/

08/30/sacrificing_truth_on_the_altar_of_diversity/

I suspect the "intolerance ratio" probably works something like
Pareto's 80/20 principle. All cultural groups probably maintain a

set

level of intolerance irrespective of their external beliefs and
practices.

Another problem with advancement of any kind of libertarianism is
that the evidence from social psychology demonstrates that most
people have a rather limited capacity for independence of thought

or

action beyond that of their primary reference group. I used to get
dismayed, for example, at the identitarian tribalism that many in

the

left-anarchist milieu often display. It seemed to me to be
incompatible with the idea of the autonomous individual. Here's

some

works by Joe Peacott that discuss this:

world.std.com/~bbrigade/badpp3.htm
world.std.com/~bbrigade/badpp2.htm
www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/socin/socin029.htm

Eventually, I realized that this kind of thing is just a matter of
human nature and exists in all groups. There's also the matter of

the

insights from modern elite theory (Pareto, Michaels, Mosca) that
indicate all systems of any size will always be oligarchies
regardless of their outward forms or formal institutional

mechanisms.

I also tend towards an idea that I call "hierachy of

personalities",

meaning that individuals who are capable of rising above the herd

are

exceedingly rare and constitute a type of natural aristocracy (in

the

Nietzschean,Stirnerite or Jungerian rather than Kirkian or De
Maistreian sense). Not in the sense of race, economic position or

any

of that but in terms of individual
psychological/intellectual/intuitive frameworks.

What are the implications of this for libertarianism? Minus the
coercive apparatus of the state, the alliance of state and capital
that tends to herd people about economically and the use of state-
controlled media and education to promulgate the offical value
system of the ruling class (whether Marxism, WASP nationalism or
multiculturalism), people tend to group off in kind under the
leadership of their own internal elites. This is frequently done on
an ethnic basis, obviously, but too assign too much importance to
ethnicity is to court reductionism. There's also culture, religion,
economics, etc. For example, a black guy who is some kind of gun

nut

might be happier around frequently racist but firearms loving

whites

than among racism-hating but gun-hating blacks and white liberals.

A

white Christian evangelical might prefer to be around Christian
evangelical blacks than whites with the religious views of Bertrand
Russell or H.L. Mencken.

A major error that modern liberation movements (civil rights,
feminists, gay, etc.) have made is to adopt the liberal-Marxist
paradigm of militant integrationism to be achieved via the coercive
apparatus of the state. I don't think this kind of thing is in the
best long-term interests of either the outgroups or the host

society.

A better approach is separatism, sovereignty and self-

determination.

For example, I think black communities would be in better condition
today if the civil rights movement had listened to true
revolutionaries like Malcolm X, Elijah Muhammed or, previously,
Marcus Garvey than easily coopted reformers like Dr. King, whose
liberal-progressive/coercive-integrationist were most compatible

with

the interests of the state and the corporate elite than those
of "extremists" like Malcolm.

The same is true of other similar issues. Here's how Americans For
Self-Determination puts it:

"But a true democracy should make space for all sorts of social
subgroups, when it's called for. These need not be separate states
necessarily, merely some space for each group to call its own. Take
for example, the Amish, whose lifestyle seems eccentric to most of
us. They have found a place in society because they have found
physical spaces where they can live unmolested. Government should
always make it possible for such religious sects to carve out some
turf, be it a neighborhood, a small town, or a county.

Other, non-religious groups might benefit from their own

territories

as well. Radical feminists may want Amazon colonies, with no men
allowed. Gays often congregate in gay neighborhoods. Why not make
those areas official with clearly delineated boundaries and local

gay

government and police forces? Genuine diversity would make our
country a rich and colorful garden of contrasts."

I suspect a "unity of separatists" approach of this type might be

the

It seems to me that the author ("Darksphere") is confusing humanism (the idea of morality and purpose being independent of the supernatural) with utilitarianism (a particular system for weighing moral decisions). As for the argument against utilitarianism; If totalitarianism does more harm than good, then isn't it unsupportable under utilitarianism?

- Steve

Steve,

  I confess I didn't check out the linked material, so I don't really have a comment on it. Just thought the email content itself was interesting.

    <<< starchild >>>