Five Differences Between the Alt-Right and Libertarianism - Jeffrey Tucker

Origanalist

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2012
Messages
43,054
ll, Hillary Clinton has gone and done it.

To the cheers of alt-righters everywhere, those angry lords of the green frog meme who hurl edgy un-PC insults at everyone to their left, the Democratic nominee has put them on the map at long last. Specifically, she accused Donald Trump of encouraging and giving voice to their dark and dangerous worldview.

Let’s leave aside the question of whether we are talking about an emergent brown-shirted takeover of American political culture, or perhaps merely a few thousand sock-puppet social media accounts adept at mischievous trolling on Twitter. The key issue is that more than a few alt-rightists claim some relationship to libertarianism, at least at their intellectual dawning until they begin to shed their libertarianism later on.

What are the differences in outlook between alt-right ideology and libertarianism?

1. The Driving Force of History

Every ideology has a theory of history, some sense of a driving theme that causes episodic movements from one stage to another. Such a theory helps us make sense of the past, present, and future. The libertarian theme of history is beautifully articulated by Murray Rothbard:

My own basic perspective on the history of man...is to place central importance on the great conflict which is eternally waged between Liberty and Power... I see the liberty of the individual not only as a great moral good in itself (or, with Lord Acton, as the highest political good), but also as the necessary condition for the flowering of all the other goods that mankind cherishes: moral virtue, civilization, the arts and sciences, economic prosperity. Out of liberty, then, stem the glories of civilized life.

There it is: liberty vs. power. Liberty unleashes human energy and builds civilization. Anything that interferes with the progress of liberty impedes the progress of humanity. One crowds out the other. The political (or anti-political) goal is clear: diminish power (which means reducing unjust violence) and enhance liberty.

What is the alt-right theory of history? The movement inherits a long and dreary tradition of thought from Friedrich Hegel to Thomas Carlyle to Oswald Spengler to Madison Grant to Othmar Spann to Giovanni Gentile to Trump’s speeches. This tradition sees something else going on in history: not liberty vs. power, but something like a more meta struggle that concerns impersonal collectives of tribe, race, community, great men, and so on.

Whereas libertarianism speaks of individual choice, alt-right theory draws attention to collectives on the move. It imagines that despite appearances, we all default in our thinking back to some more fundamental instinct about our identity as a people, which is either being shored up by a more intense consciousness or eroded by a deracination and dispossession from what defines us. To criticize this as racist is often true but superficial. What’s really going on here is the depersonalization of history itself: the principle that we are all being buffeted about by Olympian historical forces beyond our control as mere individuals. It takes something mighty and ominous like a great leader, an embodiment of one of these great forces, to make a dent in history’s narrative.

2. Harmony vs. Conflict

A related issue concerns our capacity to get along with each other. Frédéric Bastiat described the free society as characterized by a “harmony of interests.” In order to overcome the state of nature, we gradually discover the capacity to find value in each other. The division of labor is the great fact of human community: the labor of each of us becomes more productive in cooperation with others, and this is even, or rather especially, true given the unequal distribution of talents, intelligence, and skills, and differences over religion, belief systems, race, language, and so on.

And truly, this is a beautiful thing to discover. The libertarian marvels at the cooperation we see in a construction project, an office building, a restaurant, a factory, a shopping mall, to say nothing of a city, a country, or a planet. The harmony of interests doesn’t mean that everyone gets along perfectly, but rather than we inhabit institutions that incentivize progress through ever more cooperative behavior. As the liberals of old say, we believe that the “brotherhood of man” is possible.

The libertarian believes that the best and most wonderful social outcomes are not those planned, structured, and anticipated, but rather the opposite.To the alt-right mind, this all seems ridiculous. Sure, shopping is fine. But what actually characterizes human association is deep-rooted conflict. The races are secretly at war, intellectually and genetically. There is an ongoing and perpetual conflict between the sexes. People of different religions must fight and always will, until one wins. Nations fight for a reason: the struggle is real.

Some argue that war is what defines us and even gives life meaning, and, in that sense, is glorious and celebratory. For this reason, all nations must aspire toward homogeneity in stock, religion, and so on, and, as for the sexes, there must be dominance, because cooperation is an illusion.

Maybe you notice a certain commonality with the left here. In the 19th century, the Marxists whipped themselves up in a frenzy about the allegedly inherent conflict between labor and capital. Their successors fret incessantly about race, ethnicity, ability, gender, and so on, pushing Marxian conflict theory into ever more exotic realms. Ludwig von Mises captured this parallel brilliantly when he wrote, “Nationalist ideology divides society vertically; the socialist ideology divides society horizontally.” Here, as with many other areas, the far right and far left are strangely aligned.

3. Designed vs. Spontaneous Order

The libertarian believes that the best and most wonderful social outcomes are not those planned, structured, and anticipated, but rather the opposite. Society is the result of millions and billions of small acts of rational self interest that are channelled into an undesigned, unplanned, and unanticipated order that cannot be conceived by a single mind. The knowledge that is required to put together a functioning social order is conveyed through institutions: prices, manners, mores, habits, and traditions that no one can consciously will into existence. There must be a process in place, and stable rules governing that process, that permit such institutions to evolve, always in deference to the immutable laws of economics.

Again, the alt-right mind finds all of this uninspired and uninspiring. Society in their conception is built by the will of great thinkers and great leaders with unconstrained visions of what can be. What we see out there operating in society is a result of someone’s intentional and conscious planning from the top down.

If we cannot find the source, or if the source is somehow hiding, we imagine that it must be some shadowy group out there that is manipulating outcomes – and hence the alt-right’s obsession with conspiracy theory. The course of history is designed by someone, so “we” might as well engage in the great struggle to seize the controls – and hence the alt-right obsession with politics as a contact sport.

Oh, and, by the way, economics is a dismal science.

4. Trade and Migration

continued...https://fee.org/articles/five-differences-between-the-alt-right-and-libertarians/
 
Jeff "I support open borders" Cucker has no power here...

Jeffrey Tucker, for all his shortcomings, carries far, far, FAR more weight here than anything a mouth-breathing, basement-dwelling, neck-beard such as yourself might post. I assure you.

You fukwits don't own this forum, comprende? Go back to Breitbart, or Stormfront, or whatever backwater internet scum pond you people crawled out of... Ron Paul is NOT your ally.
 
And truly, this is a beautiful thing to discover. The libertarian marvels at the cooperation we see in a construction project, an office building, a restaurant, a factory, a shopping mall, to say nothing of a city, a country, or a planet. The harmony of interests doesn’t mean that everyone gets along perfectly, but rather than we inhabit institutions that incentivize progress through ever more cooperative behavior. As the liberals of old say, we believe that the “brotherhood of man” is possible.

The libertarian believes that the best and most wonderful social outcomes are not those planned, structured, and anticipated, but rather the opposite.To the alt-right mind, this all seems ridiculous. Sure, shopping is fine. But what actually characterizes human association is deep-rooted conflict. The races are secretly at war, intellectually and genetically. There is an ongoing and perpetual conflict between the sexes. People of different religions must fight and always will, until one wins. Nations fight for a reason: the struggle is real.

I knew it. This Tucker guy is a closet utopianist. Some of most tyrannical regimes on this planet have emerged from utopian thinking.

With that said, we have one group that sees conflict seeded everywhere and another group that refuses to see any internal conflict at all. Another problem I have with Tucker's analysis is this omission of very real forces that are exacerbating these various conflicts at a micro level.
 
Last edited:
Jeff "I support open borders" Cucker has no power here...

You don't want to join 'The Brotherhood of Man?' I think he spent too many hours being enthralled by Star Trek instead of investigating what this Brotherhood would really look like on our planet in 2016. The launching of any successful 'brotherhood of man' project would most likely have to be (1) small in number and (2) culturally homogeneous (think of a libertarian homestead project).
 
Last edited:
I knew it. This Tucker guy is a closet utopianist. Some of most tyrannical regimes on this planet have emerged from utopian thinking.

With that said, we have one group that sees conflict seeded everywhere and another group that refuses to see any internal conflict at all. Another problem I have with Tucker's analysis is this omission of very real forces that are exacerbating these various conflicts at a micro level.

Sounds like we need some orcs to throw some lumberjacks off a cliff and into a vat of unidentified liquid. At a micro level.
 
Last edited:
My own basic perspective on the history of man...is to place central importance on the great conflict which is eternally waged between Liberty and Power... I see the liberty of the individual not only as a great moral good in itself (or, with Lord Acton, as the highest political good), but also as the necessary condition for the flowering of all the other goods that mankind cherishes: moral virtue, civilization, the arts and sciences, economic prosperity. Out of liberty, then, stem the glories of civilized life.

Good stuff right here. There is truth to this. Without public virtue liberty cannot be achieved. It is liberty's primary foundation.

And that's the fundamental difference. Not only between principled libertarians and the alt-right, but between principled libertarians and everyone else of varying anti-moral foundations.

Once that's understood, the rest of the piece makes perfect sense.

Good post, O.
 
Last edited:
You fukwits don't own this forum, comprende? Go back to Breitbart, or Stormfront, or whatever backwater internet scum pond you people crawled out of... Ron Paul is NOT your ally.

Why are you so hostile? Relax. Secondly, this childlike projection about Ron Paul is almost pathological. Are you the gatekeeper of all things Ron Paul?

Is there a questionnaire I must fill out before I am licensed to invoke Ron Paul's name? Please enlighten me. This was the last place I thought I would encounter censorship, but sometimes LINOs can surprise.
 
Last edited:
Tucker says some good things, but his open borders nonsense disqualifies him from being taken seriously.

This absolute fanaticism over the free movement of people borders on insanity.
 
Good stuff right here. There is truth to this. Without public virtue liberty cannot be achieved. It is liberty's primary foundation.

And that's the fundamental difference. Not only between principled libertarians and the alt-right, but between principled libertarians and everyone else of varying anti-moral foundations.

Once that's understood, the rest of the piece makes perfect sense.

Good post, O.

Virtue keeps corruption and social decay at bay. But virtue doesn't just pop up spontaneously from lone individuals. It must be nurtured. Commerce alone will not make us virtuous.
 
Last edited:
If we cannot find the source, or if the source is somehow hiding, we imagine that it must be some shadowy group out there that is manipulating outcomes – and hence the alt-right’s obsession with conspiracy theory. The course of history is designed by someone, so “we” might as well engage in the great struggle to seize the controls – and hence the alt-right obsession with politics as a contact sport.

Tucker states that conspiracy theory is a product of a reluctant mind as opposed to real life machinations. It sounds like Tucker would not be a fan of Ron Paul, given that he refuses to abide by this notion that corruption does not exist if it isn't reported by the mainstream media.

 
Last edited:
Ok. This is a little better. Gives me some hope for Tucker. It sounds like he sailed off his ideological compass trying to assail the Alt Right. I for one have no issue with someone taking the Alt Right to task, if it's logically sound.

Someone-asked-me-the-other-day-if-I-believe-in-conspiracies.-Well-sure.-Heres-one.-It-is-called-the-political-system.-It-is-nothing-if-not-a-giant-conspiracy-to-rob.....-Jeffrey-Tucker.jpg



125c55d0d28774c1e8f8fcb42338f38a.jpg
 
Last edited:
Tucker could accurately be described as a "cuckservative" for his willingness to want to lay down and allow a bunch of third-world barbarians to overrun the USA.

That might be why he doesn't like the "alt-right".
 
Tucker could accurately be described as a "cuckservative" for his willingness to want to lay down and allow a bunch of third-world barbarians to overrun the USA.

That might be why he doesn't like the "alt-right".

That's right, the alt right are manly men.

71337209.jpg
 
Tucker could accurately be described as a "cuckservative" for his willingness to want to lay down and allow a bunch of third-world barbarians to overrun the USA.

That might be why he doesn't like the "alt-right".

He sounds more like a hopeless idealist than a cuck. Most cucks are scared of the word 'anarchy' since it conveys loss of control. Tucker actually embraces the word!

Tucker apparently believes that the allure of material benefits that is derived from the act of commerce can overcome profound cultural differences. IMHO They can't. Envy eventually erodes these purely material based relationships.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top