Post-libertarianism, while sounding like another bullshit ideological thoroughfare for minoritarian social media communities to trawl, is really only the recognition that libertarianism should be stripped back and seen as part of the wider landscape of options for exit. Political engagement by libertarians has largely been a failure (while laughably admirable) from the dizzying heights of Ron Paul to Gary Johnson and libertarians for Trump. In a world of increasing volatility and fragmentation, the fact libertarians look mostly moronic is evidence of libertarianism never shifting the Overton window nor becoming hegemonic.
Thus post-libertarianism is the simple act of depoliticising libertarian goals, working instead within the cornucopia of movements and contradictory ideologies that look to push power downwards and outwards, away from central entities. It means treating principles like self-ownership and the NAP as variable and largely patterned according to the networks of power and control they exist within. These principles are simply purposeful and potential mirages in the wider inky black sea of experimental nothingness. It also means questioning the innate enemies that libertarianism has attempted to cultivate. The outright opposition to war, states and taxation represent a purposeful blinding of possibilities that are present within these institutional matrices. Things like fourth-generation warfare as a grounds for producing resilient, impactful communities that move power in a turbulent direction. Red markets here are just as much hives of decentralised, non-state activity as are black and grey markets, with many intersecting and co-existing. The ability for mini-states and municipal bureaucracies to produce successful socio-economic organisation as evidence for decentral power and treating systems as flows rather than blocks. The capacity for taxation to be decentralised and its coercive element moved into more non-state directions, as in moving taxation onto blockchain technologies and digital registries. These are areas of technological and organisational investigation/experimentation that are already occurring, leaving many libertarians behind.
The topic of my recent talk followed similar lines, yet even here audience members were sceptical of a process of ideological-stripping, preferring principles to constant action and movement. Yet libertarians are not in a position to do this, instead floundering in their own zealotry as they perfect a supposedly perfect system. Libertarianism to have any affect cannot become another manifesto of iron-clad principles that are never actioned. Why would you want to become the new communists.
Our wider position should be a-central, focusing on providing the means for constant experimentation that liquefy and fragment systems of governance, neutralising their centralised core. It means working within and through other ideologies and systems, looking for means to constantly unsettle and decentralise. The political entrepreneurship of southern Chinese municipal leaders and the networks of Mafioso and Yakuza already show signs of this decentral direction, yet in this case is very much reliant on coercion. Should libertarians simply dismiss this as imperfect or wrong, or instead see such manifestations as part of wider networks of non-state and anti-state power.
For me, post-libertarianism is the capacity for libertarians to bask in the experimentation and flows before our very eyes, from the human capital factories of modern bureaucracies to the coercive networks of red markets and criminal organisations. To see states as potentially modular and not monolithic. To see system, as the foundation of government, as mouldable rather than static.
6 thoughts on “A Post-Libertarian Non-Manifesto”
[…] On post-libertarianism’s ambivalent relation to states and criminal networks, potentially increasing the ability for conflict management in coercive settings: https://thelibertarianideal.wordpress.com/2018/02/13/a-post-libertarian-non-manifesto/ […]
It seems to me that a libertarian society would never come about because people voted libertarian politicians into office, who then implemented libertarian policies. That feels like an inherently statist way of thinking.
If libertarianism is the correct philosophy, we should expect to see it emerge and evolve almost naturally, as agents follow their incentives over the long term. We should see governments brought low, not by violent, organized revolutions, but by tax avoidance and new technologies that increase asymmetric use of power. The magna carta wasn’t nearly as big of a deal for the libertarian movement, as were the crossbow and the gutenberg press.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The LP gives the loopter kleptocracy incentives to repeal cruel laws by draining away spoiler votes. Our 4 million votes in the 2016 Presidential election covered the gap in 13 states casting 127 electoral votes. In essence either half or the Kleptocracy could have imported our planks and won. (We got an additional 8 million or so votes winning some down-ballot elections). The Democrats in 1932 imported the repeal Prohibition plank adopted by the Liberal Party in 1930, and won the next five elections. All major policies for the past century and a half were changed in this manner–for worse before there was an LP, and for better since we came into being. Proofs that I am wrong are welcomed with whoops of joy at libertariantranslator on WordPress
[…]  https://thelibertarianideal.com/2018/02/13/a-post-libertarian-non-manifesto/ […]
[…] A Post-Libertarian Non-Manifesto […]
At Libertariantranslator dotcom I argue the opposite, not from prediction or revelation but rather historical evidence, induction, and mathematical fits to logistics replacement curves. In “The Case for Voting Libertarian” I showed with audio and excel charts that all major changes in U.S. law came from the platforms of small parties that elected practically nobody but amounted to the 3% difference between winning and losing halves of the entrenched kleptocracy. My votes are highly leveraged, and pack at least an order of magnitude more law-changing clout than if wasted as 0.00000007% of the votes endorsing increased coercion, violence, war, borrowing, imprisonment, shooting of youth over plant leaves and threatening doctors who offer birth control. The strategy of spoiler votes gave fanatical looter parties the pleasure of passing the 16th and 18th Amendments which by their lights was WINNING. Repealing them by those methods is our idea of WINNING. Since I published this in 2007 I see more and more desperate whining appeals to get us to stop. Repealing cruel laws and deleting coercive proposals from YOUR platforms are the only way to neutralize the danger of your politician missing out on a hand in the till come election day. –Cheerfully,