It is open-minded of you to entertain the idea that, in speaking of mankind, you are referring to nothing in heaven or earth. Bold too in that you entertain at a level where not even the blank-slatist dares to amuse us; for even he holds (at least implicitly) that mankind is the kind of thing upon which anything could be inscribed, thus attributing to mankind a nature as such. But you entertain something even more radical (and altogether incoherent): something without a nature at all. Besides, why pick on mankind? Why not igneous rock?

“I say, ask Kierkegaard and Nietzsche that question.”

From subjectivists and irrationalists, it is not always to be expected that objective and rational answers will be forthcoming.

“Individualism, in fact, allows space for hierarchy and natural order.”

By ideology, it allows space for anything; hence, in reality, it makes space for chaos. From which, we may note, the kind of order may arise that is anathema to the individualist. Which, we may note more happily, serves him right.

“Herd morality and groupthink…these are the products of Egalitarianism, Puritanism, and TradCons favorite Progressive–Mr. Jesus H. Christ.”

They are the products of that thing whose non-existence you entertain, namely, human nature, aka, rational animality, of which the animality is of the social (i.e., group-) kind. But, overlooking the problem of human nature, like all utopians, you espy the glib-optimistic pseudo-solution: just get rid of egalitarianism, puritanism, Christianity, etc, and the abstract creatures of liberal thought will be born unto the world Or, to put it another way: you entertain that mankind is without nature, whilst incoherently affirming that mankind is of such a nature that it can give rise to that most curious figment of mental abstraction, found nowhere in nature or possibility, namely, the individualist’s conception of the human individual.

I entirely agree with your post. There are some in the alt-right/NRx universe who claim that individualism is indeed inherently “left”. I fundamentally disagree with that position. (It’s a little debate Brett Stevens and I have from time to time.)

Deogolwulf writes: “Leftism is incoherent in accident if not in essence. Individualism and egalitarianism are properties (proper accidents) of leftism, the essence of which is perpetual revolt, overthrow, and destruction — or perhaps rather: some material or animal recrudescence. That its properties are mutually incompatible, mutually destructive, is in keeping with its essence.”

This is similar to MM’s point (paraphrased as I don’t recall the exact quote) that the “left” isn’t a consistent or coherent system of ideas, but always a movement…towards totalitarianism and, thus, the destruction of civilization.

Effectively, the left gets away with this bullshit cause a) realpolitik (they have had all the power), and b) Hegelian dialectic is actually their MO.

A quote from Deogolwulf’s last link: “The pluralism which accompanies individualism is a social dysfunction built on subjectivistic-irrationalistic ethics. It denies that mankind has a nature and thereby a natural end to be fulfilled. Only by that denial does it make sense to say that everyone has a right to pursue any goals and practice any values which he pleases so long as he does not seek to foist them upon others. And how is that disorder to be managed? Why, by the totalitarian bureau-technocratic state of liberaldom!”

Not necessarily. Does mankind have a nature? Yes, no. Maybe so. I say, ask Kierkegaard and Nietzsche that question. (But I still have little love for trannys.) You can be an individualist, have respect for individual autonomy, and be loyal to your family, heritage, tradition and thede. Individualism, in fact, allows space for hierarchy and natural order…some people are better than others (get over it) and those people will lead, rule, teach, guide, and train others for generations in countless different contexts. And pluralism, in my opinion, is the exact opposite of the Progressive wet-dream of one all-powerful monoculture that will control the entire goddamn earth (in Prog-speak…the “global community”).

Herd morality and groupthink…these are the products of Egalitarianism, Puritanism, and TradCons favorite Progressive–Mr. Jesus H. Christ.

Anyhow, thanks for replying. I enjoy the dialogue!

I see your point, and I might even have made a similar point myself about some blinderedness around GMU. To pick on Bryan Caplan and immigration: economists are justifiably impatient about people who don’t appreciate free exchange and comparative advantage, but smart honest economists should also take seriously the possibility of losing more than is gained by accidentally-on-purpose making US politics more like Latin American politics, and should also be scathing about important details of immigration policy (many formal microeconomic perversities in H1B and the like, many public choice perversities in electing a new people, more public choice perversities in the way immigration is to be expanded not into a right governed by stable written law but a favor selectively doled out by the powerful to their current allies). A libertarian general support for freedom of religion is not a very good explanation for supporting James II selectively doling out extralegal tolerance to his allies while continuing to persecute other religions; by elimination, we must take more seriously other explanations like your dopamine rush explanation or the usual get-along-with-the-rulers considerations.

However, note the “around GMU” I slipped in there. My impression is that (1) libertarians who moved to greater Washington DC are a large proportion of the libertarians who have readjusted their thinking to please the left, and (2) most libertarians don’t move to greater Washington DC. Even moving to a thoroughly left place like California (Friedman, Postrel…) doesn’t seem remotely comparable.

If you enclose the commons as they are right now, yeah you’re going to have issues with right of way. However, the problem is self correcting.

One canon example is not being able to get to my job, because the roads between A and B have become private and they don’t like me enough to let me through. Thing is, if the roads had been private in the first place, I would have obtained a permanent transit permit before taking the job, or else decline the job as inaccessible.

The river/farmland arrangement works the same. Acquire right of way instead of taking it for granted.

those are very effective ways to convince libertarians that a government is not about law and order.

Many civil disobedience campaigns are kinda sorta justifiable. Guerrilla slave freeing is just a statement that laws supporting slavery are inherently unjust; it’s not entirely clear those laws aren’t.

The IRS destroying its records is utterly, totally, completely beyond the pale. They’re obviously horrendously guilty. As far as I’m concerned this is war crime level criminality.

I don’t know if it’s worth reviving my tumblr. Still contemplating how much writing I ought to be doing and on what topics.