El Salvador was so completely ruled by gangs and so miserably unfree for the rest of society that the most liberty-improving act possible was "lock up all the gangsters indefinitely, without trials." In theory, that's a very anti-libertarian act, but in practice, the overall liberty in the country improved massively.
Libertarians everywhere should remember the lesson. The missing piece of a forever-minority ideology must be the willingness to fight evil in proportion to its threat instead of whining about the "lesser of two evils".
I think the better argument for Bukele's actions from a libertarian perspective is that the gang members were very obviously uniformed enemy combatants, they just happened to wear their uniforms under their skin. It was very clear who they were, who was affiliated with and supporting their violations, so there was no real question. No worries about violating the rights of the innocent in this case.
Lock up gangsters without trials is without context. They accepted the word of the gangster that they were in fact murderers. You see the gangsters had tattoos that described in great detail the illegal actions of these gangsters and the courts allowed it as evidence that they in fact did kill people based on tattoo evidence.
Those tattoos were not only to intimidate the general population as well as inform other members of the murders and crimes they have done like a resume, but were eventually taken at face value by the court. Pun intended
"some of the nicest people are covered in tattoo, but not Juan, Juan will kill you."
Indeed. "Liberty" is foundational in our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights. "Democrat" and "Republican" are artificial constructs that attempt to control government and the people.
EDIT: At this point, it is appropriate to remove "attempt to" from the last sentence.
Well said. The left always claims to do things for others, yet all they accomplish is to take from others. I'll never forget or forgive the crazies wanting to lock me up for not taking the death jabs. Or for taking my stuff to give to those who want me dead.
they didn't even care that there was zero research done showing prevention of transmission prior to their calls for you to be forcibly jabbed with an experimental gene therapy.
They don't need research. I was told not to do my own research. They have "Experts," like Admiral Levine, who know better than me. Hope they all die from the clotshots.
Despite being an anarcho capitalist, even I can recognize we are way past “live and let live”. Obama and his Justice Department, State Department, FBI, and CIA (plus Five Eyes and Ukraine Intelligence friends abroad) already launched a soft civil war with their seditious conspiracy against Trump, J6 Protesters, and Moms against Schoolboards. They will never leave us alone and must be dealt with using all legal means available.
I believe that aggression against the tyranny you mention is consistent with ancap philosophy and the nonaggression principle when we properly conceive of self-defense.
It’s absurd that we would be ethically required to allow ourselves to remain in a permanent defenseless position. We must be allowed to fight back against that type of subjugation at some point before being actually pushed into a boxcar.
The irony is that those who wish to tell you what to do and insist on your giving them your stuff, because they have decided for you what is a better use of your possessions, are the first to call anyone who wants to stop this as a despot and tyrant!
The most important thing the government does for Nicholas is that there is no "problem" that can't be solved by another person's money; in this case so that he can feel gracious and virtuous.
They make me 🤢 to the point of 🤮. Big mouths. No follow through. Their luxury beliefs never affect them, only those on whom they want to impose them. Disgusting spiteful mutants.
But now, how do we deal with the libertarians like Thiel whose business is to equip government with the power/tools to control us….isn’t that the libertarian also choosing philosophically to equip the government to make the social contract null and void.
And I get that the libertarians, like Thiel, laugh all the way to the bank as they have acquired sufficient power, $$$, and leverage/influence (through the capture and corruption of government institutions) to operate largely outside the confines of ‘governance’ that applies to us…that is, they subscribe as libertarians to something which resembles “rules for thee, but not for me.”
Along those lines, one might conclude that our oligarchs at heart are just libertarians who have harnessed the powers/institutions of democracy for money and influence with little regard for the potential impact on humanity. That is, they are ok at this stage with undermining the social contract through machinery that will make obsolete the ability of the average citizen to enjoy the “live and let live” approach.
And one must ask….these guys aren’t stupid. Oh to the contrary….do you think they would build the digital prison with an understanding that such power could fall into anyone’s hands (i.e. the next “democratically” elected person or candidate). Ha! They would not. They will build the system in a way that guarantees their prominence and ability to control. After all, libertarianism understands the value of not having to worry about the actions of others….technology is allowing them to move the benefits of the social contract to algorithms. But don’t expect them to be applicable across the board.
After all, the very introduction of the social contract into humanity is the result of the parties not being sure who would prevail in a “state of nature” which has historically been understood to be a state of war and survival of the fittest.
The tech/propaganda of today has then convinced they can win the war in the state of nature….and that tech is the key.
And they are willing to force others to comply with the requirement of infusing tech into all aspects of our lives to achieve their goals of dominance. Can they really still call themselves libertarians?
Thiel is not a libertarian. Look at actions, not words. The term libertarian has lost meaning and carries baggage now. I prefer using anarcho-capitalist or Austrian economist. Terms that show some specific attempt to understand the distinctions. You don't have to agree with everything Rothbard and Mises thought but at this point in political time if you don't at least know who they were and your personal philosophy doesn't root from their books then you are probably not (yet) a libertarian. They modernized Locke to explain the FED and fiat money and the U.N. We can't go back to pre-Revolutionary America to try again, we can only go forward with the 18th, 19th and 20th century events under our belt. I personally don't think I'd even want to recreate 1776 and prefer finding the version of libertarianism that deals with our technology realities instead of trying to mimic the life Amish keep alive.
"Can they really still call themselves libertarians?"
No: because Thiel, as you've well described, is trying to assume state-like powers. No libertarian even _wants_ state-like powers: even less, for anyone else to get state-like powers. A libertarian just wants to get on with his/her thang.
An interesting thing about your point is that it shows how people just "getting on with their thang" (Thiel making loads of money, which is relatively innocent) then don't know where to stop: they realise that the way to make even more money is to ally with the state and its (seemingly) infinite $-spigot. And then, whether they'd admit it or not, they are no longer libertarians but state actors.
A necessary libertarian State would exist only to _prevent_ this kind of thing. To stop individuals' pursuit of their thang from morphing into state-like behaviour.
The most humanitarian foreign aid that could be given is how to be a society based on libertarian principles and tell them they must do the work themselves to bring that about.
This post is the equivalent to John Galt's 80 page speech in Atlas Shrugged as it sums up everything wrong with our society and why real men are stepping away from playing the game of life according to other's rules, do you hear me Hank Rearden!!!
Expanding on the health care theme, not only did government basically take over health care with Obamacare, it inserted health insurance companies squarely into the middle with predictable consequences: higher costs, worse outcomes.
What killed all of that for me was during the campaign, the theme was 'no mandates' on that shit insurance I saw a mile away, but within hours of the election, there were mandates. I just had to throw up my hands and exclaim," well. my bad, I bothered to vote this decade.." I didn't vote again until '24.
This is excellent. In the way you describe it, most of us reading this would probably describe ourselves as libertarians.
However, there is one element missing from this high-trust society that we’d like to still be living in (which still existed when I was young). That is what some of the founders recognized: our form of government is only suited to a moral and religious people. And before anyone says what some already may be thinking, truly moral and religious people do not believe in compelling others to adopt their religious beliefs. That too is a violation of the contract.
But we do need to agree on what the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule summarize. For instance, we cannot say that murdering human beings at any stage of life is a good; doing so directly contradicts the concept of human flourishing. I cannot do what I please even if the only people disturbed by my conduct are members of my own family. Every single person living under the social contract needs to adhere to it in every aspect of life. And that is a tall order.
My biggest disagreement is with the so-called atheist libertarians. They seem to believe that morality is inborn and just "pops" into being within ourselves. "The Golden Rule" they say, "is all you need." High trust/high function societies are the rare exception, not the norm. And if the Golden rule and its benefits were so obvious, why is it not practiced by everyone? Without a strong spiritual driver, social commandments become social contracts, and contracts are open to negotiation.
I am an atheist libertarian but I certainly do NOT believe the Golden Rule is all you need. Nor do I see the Golden Rule as "obviously" inborn. That view does not fit with the many libertarians I know and have known. Religion has not been a good friend of liberty most of the time.
I'm a conservative and live in California. It's like a gang war and we're out numbered. I'm Republican by default because conservative libertarians are even fewer than Reps. I appreciate your observations and your like. I don't get many of ether. God bless.
Great piece, but I am struck by how little referring to "the left" and "the right" adds to it. Does it matter where someone who values liberty stands along a leftright continuum? Leftright is as firm a point of reference as smoke, jello, or a point of mirrors. Take your pick.
The poles that matter are liberty and tyrrany. All else is playing into the hands of decievers who divide and conquer by appealing to tribalism.
Utopia would be inhabited only by libertarians.however so long as humans reproduce, there will be aberrant members of society that make laws and prisons a necessity.
Excellent take on libertarianism, those marginal people that most, especially on the left, don’t take seriously.
Any and all government is a slippery slope. Human dynamics makes it so. In the mind of the left, everything is ripe for renegotiation. In some ways this is good, but big, strong, guard rails are a must.
Interesting that the term “social contract”, which once was very much in vogue, is seldom heard in public, now.
Governments are compromises. They constitute a deal. As soon as big exceptions are made for selective groups (ie. shop-lifting is OK if less than $999.99, or DEI), the social fabric begins to unravel, and no one has a clear idea of where that will lead.
When a government goes insane (open borders, defund police, racial / identity politics, genital mutilation of children, unnecessary wars, etc.), it’s time to either man-up (if you can), or head for the life boats - but means loosing everything you have worked for.
A piece for the ages.
Call this the Bukele Argument.
El Salvador was so completely ruled by gangs and so miserably unfree for the rest of society that the most liberty-improving act possible was "lock up all the gangsters indefinitely, without trials." In theory, that's a very anti-libertarian act, but in practice, the overall liberty in the country improved massively.
Libertarians everywhere should remember the lesson. The missing piece of a forever-minority ideology must be the willingness to fight evil in proportion to its threat instead of whining about the "lesser of two evils".
I think the better argument for Bukele's actions from a libertarian perspective is that the gang members were very obviously uniformed enemy combatants, they just happened to wear their uniforms under their skin. It was very clear who they were, who was affiliated with and supporting their violations, so there was no real question. No worries about violating the rights of the innocent in this case.
In this case, the uniform was face tattoos. That was literally the criteria for arrest.
Precisely. You don't accidentally have those done. In fact I understand that one has to earn the right to get them without getting killed.
The tattoos were resumes and taken as admission of the crime they described. You have murder on your tattoo we believe you.
Lock up gangsters without trials is without context. They accepted the word of the gangster that they were in fact murderers. You see the gangsters had tattoos that described in great detail the illegal actions of these gangsters and the courts allowed it as evidence that they in fact did kill people based on tattoo evidence.
Those tattoos were not only to intimidate the general population as well as inform other members of the murders and crimes they have done like a resume, but were eventually taken at face value by the court. Pun intended
"some of the nicest people are covered in tattoo, but not Juan, Juan will kill you."
https://imgur.com/gallery/juan-zlCA7
I always remember that anything the government can do or do for you, it can do TO you.
Indeed. "Liberty" is foundational in our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights. "Democrat" and "Republican" are artificial constructs that attempt to control government and the people.
EDIT: At this point, it is appropriate to remove "attempt to" from the last sentence.
Well said! This is one I will save in my "wisdom" file!
Like!
Well said. The left always claims to do things for others, yet all they accomplish is to take from others. I'll never forget or forgive the crazies wanting to lock me up for not taking the death jabs. Or for taking my stuff to give to those who want me dead.
they didn't even care that there was zero research done showing prevention of transmission prior to their calls for you to be forcibly jabbed with an experimental gene therapy.
They don't need research. I was told not to do my own research. They have "Experts," like Admiral Levine, who know better than me. Hope they all die from the clotshots.
Like Admiral Levine who would love to hide behind the rhetoric that 'I wasn't tested for chromosones at birth, so it is a mystery to me?"
Libertarianism appeals to this anarchist. Even Rousseau's primitives knew what sex they were.
The left is the political activist arm of the Transnational agenda and their very active takeover of the US.
They're commies doing commie stuff.
Despite being an anarcho capitalist, even I can recognize we are way past “live and let live”. Obama and his Justice Department, State Department, FBI, and CIA (plus Five Eyes and Ukraine Intelligence friends abroad) already launched a soft civil war with their seditious conspiracy against Trump, J6 Protesters, and Moms against Schoolboards. They will never leave us alone and must be dealt with using all legal means available.
I believe that aggression against the tyranny you mention is consistent with ancap philosophy and the nonaggression principle when we properly conceive of self-defense.
It’s absurd that we would be ethically required to allow ourselves to remain in a permanent defenseless position. We must be allowed to fight back against that type of subjugation at some point before being actually pushed into a boxcar.
Now the PTB are ramping up the digital technofeudalism. People mostly believe this is "progress." Ought to be interesting.
Chinese curse.
The irony is that those who wish to tell you what to do and insist on your giving them your stuff, because they have decided for you what is a better use of your possessions, are the first to call anyone who wants to stop this as a despot and tyrant!
After the Golden Rule, rule #2: Never trust anyone to know how to spend your gold better than you.
Or to manage your life and health.
Nicholas Decker can't possibly believe that "humanitarian foreign aid" is "the most important and effective thing the government does," can he?
The most important thing the government does for Nicholas is that there is no "problem" that can't be solved by another person's money; in this case so that he can feel gracious and virtuous.
I'm so sick of all these "virtuous" people.
They make me 🤢 to the point of 🤮. Big mouths. No follow through. Their luxury beliefs never affect them, only those on whom they want to impose them. Disgusting spiteful mutants.
This….what Ryan said.
But now, how do we deal with the libertarians like Thiel whose business is to equip government with the power/tools to control us….isn’t that the libertarian also choosing philosophically to equip the government to make the social contract null and void.
And I get that the libertarians, like Thiel, laugh all the way to the bank as they have acquired sufficient power, $$$, and leverage/influence (through the capture and corruption of government institutions) to operate largely outside the confines of ‘governance’ that applies to us…that is, they subscribe as libertarians to something which resembles “rules for thee, but not for me.”
Along those lines, one might conclude that our oligarchs at heart are just libertarians who have harnessed the powers/institutions of democracy for money and influence with little regard for the potential impact on humanity. That is, they are ok at this stage with undermining the social contract through machinery that will make obsolete the ability of the average citizen to enjoy the “live and let live” approach.
And one must ask….these guys aren’t stupid. Oh to the contrary….do you think they would build the digital prison with an understanding that such power could fall into anyone’s hands (i.e. the next “democratically” elected person or candidate). Ha! They would not. They will build the system in a way that guarantees their prominence and ability to control. After all, libertarianism understands the value of not having to worry about the actions of others….technology is allowing them to move the benefits of the social contract to algorithms. But don’t expect them to be applicable across the board.
After all, the very introduction of the social contract into humanity is the result of the parties not being sure who would prevail in a “state of nature” which has historically been understood to be a state of war and survival of the fittest.
The tech/propaganda of today has then convinced they can win the war in the state of nature….and that tech is the key.
And they are willing to force others to comply with the requirement of infusing tech into all aspects of our lives to achieve their goals of dominance. Can they really still call themselves libertarians?
Please put libertarian in scare quotes when you refer to Thiel.
Very wolf in sheeps clothing type creepy billionaire.
Aren’t they all….to a certain degree. Power corrupts and absolute power absolutely corrupts.
Thiel is not a libertarian. Look at actions, not words. The term libertarian has lost meaning and carries baggage now. I prefer using anarcho-capitalist or Austrian economist. Terms that show some specific attempt to understand the distinctions. You don't have to agree with everything Rothbard and Mises thought but at this point in political time if you don't at least know who they were and your personal philosophy doesn't root from their books then you are probably not (yet) a libertarian. They modernized Locke to explain the FED and fiat money and the U.N. We can't go back to pre-Revolutionary America to try again, we can only go forward with the 18th, 19th and 20th century events under our belt. I personally don't think I'd even want to recreate 1776 and prefer finding the version of libertarianism that deals with our technology realities instead of trying to mimic the life Amish keep alive.
"Can they really still call themselves libertarians?"
No: because Thiel, as you've well described, is trying to assume state-like powers. No libertarian even _wants_ state-like powers: even less, for anyone else to get state-like powers. A libertarian just wants to get on with his/her thang.
An interesting thing about your point is that it shows how people just "getting on with their thang" (Thiel making loads of money, which is relatively innocent) then don't know where to stop: they realise that the way to make even more money is to ally with the state and its (seemingly) infinite $-spigot. And then, whether they'd admit it or not, they are no longer libertarians but state actors.
A necessary libertarian State would exist only to _prevent_ this kind of thing. To stop individuals' pursuit of their thang from morphing into state-like behaviour.
The most humanitarian foreign aid that could be given is how to be a society based on libertarian principles and tell them they must do the work themselves to bring that about.
Yeah I honestly can’t tell if Nicholas is a troll or completely retarded
He can, because he is brainwashed.
He can believe whatever he needs to believe, especially if he gets a cut of what his NGO distributes.
This post is the equivalent to John Galt's 80 page speech in Atlas Shrugged as it sums up everything wrong with our society and why real men are stepping away from playing the game of life according to other's rules, do you hear me Hank Rearden!!!
I woke up in March of 2020 and realized that most Americans no longer lived in this social contract you refer to.
I'm Canadian. Like you, I woke up in March 2020 ans realized the whole western world no longer lived in this social contract.
only Western? People dying in Singapore, too - 100% uptake.
This is a very clear reminder.
It might help many who think that they’re libertarian to understand libertarianism.
Many others simply don’t care. They just use old terms such as human rights in order to steal and enslave.
Take health care for example. They added killing to the supposed duties, and have demanded compliance.
Expanding on the health care theme, not only did government basically take over health care with Obamacare, it inserted health insurance companies squarely into the middle with predictable consequences: higher costs, worse outcomes.
Much earlier than Obama with medicare and medicaid.
What killed all of that for me was during the campaign, the theme was 'no mandates' on that shit insurance I saw a mile away, but within hours of the election, there were mandates. I just had to throw up my hands and exclaim," well. my bad, I bothered to vote this decade.." I didn't vote again until '24.
This is excellent. In the way you describe it, most of us reading this would probably describe ourselves as libertarians.
However, there is one element missing from this high-trust society that we’d like to still be living in (which still existed when I was young). That is what some of the founders recognized: our form of government is only suited to a moral and religious people. And before anyone says what some already may be thinking, truly moral and religious people do not believe in compelling others to adopt their religious beliefs. That too is a violation of the contract.
But we do need to agree on what the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule summarize. For instance, we cannot say that murdering human beings at any stage of life is a good; doing so directly contradicts the concept of human flourishing. I cannot do what I please even if the only people disturbed by my conduct are members of my own family. Every single person living under the social contract needs to adhere to it in every aspect of life. And that is a tall order.
My biggest disagreement is with the so-called atheist libertarians. They seem to believe that morality is inborn and just "pops" into being within ourselves. "The Golden Rule" they say, "is all you need." High trust/high function societies are the rare exception, not the norm. And if the Golden rule and its benefits were so obvious, why is it not practiced by everyone? Without a strong spiritual driver, social commandments become social contracts, and contracts are open to negotiation.
I am an atheist libertarian but I certainly do NOT believe the Golden Rule is all you need. Nor do I see the Golden Rule as "obviously" inborn. That view does not fit with the many libertarians I know and have known. Religion has not been a good friend of liberty most of the time.
I've long said I'd have been a libertarian if they'd just do what I told them to.
I gave you the like. Unfortunately, I find irony doesnt come across to most internet commenters, even in the best of comment sections.
Hi Tom:
I'm a conservative and live in California. It's like a gang war and we're out numbered. I'm Republican by default because conservative libertarians are even fewer than Reps. I appreciate your observations and your like. I don't get many of ether. God bless.
As you can probably tell from my name, we have much in common. Keep the faith!
Great piece, but I am struck by how little referring to "the left" and "the right" adds to it. Does it matter where someone who values liberty stands along a leftright continuum? Leftright is as firm a point of reference as smoke, jello, or a point of mirrors. Take your pick.
The poles that matter are liberty and tyrrany. All else is playing into the hands of decievers who divide and conquer by appealing to tribalism.
"That government is best which governs least." - HDT
I see retarded people. Thank you el gato malo for expounding on this annoying phantasmal crisis.
a Seventh sense?
Utopia would be inhabited only by libertarians.however so long as humans reproduce, there will be aberrant members of society that make laws and prisons a necessity.
Or, alternatively, the aberrant members become politicians and bureaucrats.
Excellent take on libertarianism, those marginal people that most, especially on the left, don’t take seriously.
Any and all government is a slippery slope. Human dynamics makes it so. In the mind of the left, everything is ripe for renegotiation. In some ways this is good, but big, strong, guard rails are a must.
Interesting that the term “social contract”, which once was very much in vogue, is seldom heard in public, now.
Governments are compromises. They constitute a deal. As soon as big exceptions are made for selective groups (ie. shop-lifting is OK if less than $999.99, or DEI), the social fabric begins to unravel, and no one has a clear idea of where that will lead.
When a government goes insane (open borders, defund police, racial / identity politics, genital mutilation of children, unnecessary wars, etc.), it’s time to either man-up (if you can), or head for the life boats - but means loosing everything you have worked for.
Fabulous piece of truth cat!