By I, AnCap
Too often in my I hear the following comments/concerns/“thoughts” (if you can call them that):
“Hillary and Trump are the same”
“A third party? I’d like a second party!”
“The left and right are both wings on the same bird.”
I’m not sorry to inform you that if you hold these views, you are misinformed at best and close minded at worse. You haven’t taken the time to even fully understand the circumstances that allowed you to make such an ignorant statement. If these are honestly your beliefs and you’re sticking to them, I congratulate you for reaching this far, because what I’m about to tell you next will likely fly right over your head.
What’s even more astonishing is there are two major groups you hear this from. The first are moderates who dare not tread into political issues lest they be forced to choose a side and alienate their friends and family. The other you hear it from are libertarians, anarchists, and other supposed “Anti-authority” individuals on the political blogosphere.
Since it is unlikely the first group will ever know this article exists, I compel any members of the latter group to consider the following argument.
You believe in self ownership, non-aggression, and property norms, and so do I. You despise the state, and whether or not you want it gone completely as I do, you at least find it evil, expensive, obnoxious, or detestable. Furthermore, you find any aggressors beyond the state morally abhorrent and the initiation of force despicable.
Since you hold these beliefs, it is reasonable to assume that we both agree that argumentation is the best way to settle disputes over scarce resources. We understand that because it is more beneficial to argue over scarce resources, initiation of force is wrong and therefore, argumentation presupposes self ownership.
We can thereby conclude that by the fact we prefer arguing, self ownership exists and property norms are valid. It is through this reasoning that libertarianism is undisputedly the best philosophy for advancing prosperity, wealth accumulation, technological advancement, and effective resource management.
It should also stand to reason that the group that proposes abandoning argumentation and replacing it with coercion, theft, and wealth redistribution, is inherently anti-prosperity, anti-wealth, and pro-poverty. With the abundance of resources available to us through the internet, we can quickly discover via party platform which group that describes better. The answer would be the Democrats: higher price floor for labor, higher taxes, weaker regard for property rights, and less emphasis on investment in children and offspring.
A common argument against the Republican Party and one used to conflate it to the left is its supposed infatuation with war and the Military Industrial Complex. However, the Democratic party and it’s constituents have been seemingly reluctant to oppose war since its foundation. Initial hesitation to initiate military action is not synonymous with the party’s undeniable habit of fighting wars in a way that they will never end. Which party occupied the White House during the First World War? During the Second World War? During the Libyan conflict? During majority of the Afghanistan occupation? Liberals are no enemies of war. In fact, it is more reasonable to say they have a reputation for entering conflicts without an exit strategy, unlike Republican administrations.
There are many other flimsy parallels that those espousing this rhetoric use that can be easily dismantled in another essay, and I’d be happy to address each of them brought to my attention. The point is this; our attention should not be so focused on moral and philosophical purity that we alienate those who actually have similar views to us. Libertarians in America would be wise to align with the right wing instead of shoving aside their would-be allies for hordes of Marxist vermin who lack even a trace of a libertarian bone in their body.
Image source: http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/7312750-4×3-940×705.jpg