Monday, April 02, 2007

Reject "Conservative Libertarians" !

Over the last several years I have noticed a disturbing trend within the libertarian movement: conservatism. Several otherwise excellent libertarian websites, newsletters and periodicals seem to have libertarians holding many "conservative" views. Many of these views are downright anti-libertarian and a rejection of the radicalism of the classical liberal and modern libertarian concept. Although I am a fan of Lew Rockwell and his site, I am greatly disturbed by many of his "paleo-conservative" writers and associates. Gary North, a Christian reconstructionist zealot, Patrick Buchanan, a right wing Catholic, are just a couple of the conservative types on Rockwell's site that come to mind.

I have also read several articles that show many libertarians praising conservative feudalists like Edmund Burke while rejecting the natural rights radicalism of men like Thomas Paine, Joseph Priestley, Richard Price and Thomas Jefferson. These men, not Burke, are our intellectual forefathers. Burke stood for monarchy, state sponsored religion, feudalism, primogeniture, aristocracy, and permanent tradition. That is not radical, nor part of our "tradition". If one wants to know what Burke and other intellectual prescriptive rights "libertarians" stood for read Reflections on the Revolution in France. If you are believer in true liberty you will see Burke for what he is: monarchist, statist, and worshipper of authority. Don't fall into the trap that he was against the French Revolution so that should make him a lover of liberty. On the contrary, his opposition to the French Revolution was during it's early classical liberal period and not during the "Terror". This shows Burke true hatred of natural rights and republican government. With all of it's flaws, the French Revolution, along with the American and English Revolutions helped pave the way for modern society and ushered in the Industrial Age. The world before these revolutions was one only a statist could love: absolute monarchy, theocracy, serfdom, feudalism, sanguinary punishments, and constant war. This is the world of the Dark Ages, before the Age of Enlightenment. This is where the roots of conservatism lie.

As a radical libertarian I urge you to be wary of wolves in sheep's clothing. Many people, both secretly liberal or conservative, will portray themselves as libertarians. As the old adage goes, "Look before you leap". There are many out there. Thomas Woods, Jr, a contributor to Lew Rockwell, claims to be a paleoconservative, but when examined closely is more of a religious conservative masquerading as a libertarian. Another is neoconservatives like Neil Boortz, a man who claims to be a libertarian, but shills for the war machine in Washington, and who supports the unconstitutional actions of the Bush regime: wiretapping, Patriot Act, etc. One I mentioned above, Gary North, is a Christian Reconstructionist, and fanatic who parades himself around as a libertarian or paleoconservative. North actually believes in a theocratic state with stoning, theocracy, and dictatorship. He would send us back beyond the Dark Ages to the most primitive of times, the times of the Bible. This was a time when men thought the Earth was flat, that the Earth was the center of the universe, human sacrifices were common, and men lived in the most abject poverty and suffered the most horrific oppression. How can a man in the modern era, especially our era of technology embrace such a worldview? How can Lew Rockwell, an otherwise excellent paleoconservative, support such a man on his site? I do not know the answers to those questions, but it does make me question the judgment and motives of Rockwell.

Beware of people who claim to be libertarians, but continue to endorse the religious view that people are depraved, stupid, and in need of religion, monarchy, or some other freedom destroying organism to run their life. Another of these types of people is Professor Hans Hermann Hoppe, an anarcho-capitalist. Strangely, this "anarchist" supports monarchy and yearns for the times of chivalry and feudal lords. Huh? What kind of libertarian is that? Kings, the feudal structure and organized religion were used as a sledgehammer on the rights of men. Outside of royalty and nobility the lives of people in a monarchical society were one of abject poverty, religious superstition, violence, intolerance,and a caste system. Kings and nobility fleeced their populations through enormous taxation, tithing, forced labor, poor laws,
game laws, and hereditary government positions. This world that Hoppe pines for is at total variance with the ideals of the American Revolution. The American Revolution was an earth shattering event. The ideals of republicanism, freedom, individual liberty, equality under law, abolition of royalty and feudal impositions, freed the American people from tyranny and spread the ideals of the rights of men to the world. The American Revolution was the most radical in a series of revolutions that rocked the Western world. It began in England with the radical "Puritan" Revolution of the 1640's, the "Glorious" Revolution of the 1680's, continuing on to the American Revolution and ending with the French Revolution. Of all these, the American Revolution was by far the most radical. Monarchy, royalty, aristocracy, theocracy, the caste system of aristocrats and commoners, all fell in America. Today, we see the spectacle of supposed "libertarians" advocating ancient despotism's like feudalism, property qualifications for voting, and in Hoppe's case, monarchy. Amazing.

My advice to my fellow libertarians is: BE WARY of supposed "allies". It is my belief, and my belief only, that many of the people in the libertarian movement are either agent provocateurs at some levels of government, or men and women who truly desire to turn back the clock to the Dark Ages, pining for a dead past in which people were enslaved and dominated by government. Keep your reason sharp and your guard up, liberty needs you.