From Bottom To The Top it is from Left to Right

I was given a video yesterday dedicated to saying that the political spectrum essentially goes bottom to top. It was interesting to see that in the view of the creators it was authoritarians on the bottom and freedom at the top. The spectrum or compass does indeed go from tyranny on one end to freedom on the other. For only force or non-consent or coercion has degrees while freedom is a stable state of a specific social system. You have two options the moral social system which we call Capitalism. Or a system of levels of immorality attempted to be mixed with the moral. On the pure and far opposite end you have full on immorality with not even a shred of morality or justice left namely pure authoritarianism. It is individual rights on end and degrees of statism as you verge from it.

I disagree with the video when it claims that rightism is not an accurate way of describing that which they call the top. The right refers to the political element of the enshrining of individual rights and to the social system known as Capitalism. Capitalism is the actual name of the freedom it places at the top VS the Leftist authoritarianism it places at the bottom. Anti-Capitalism in some degree is what the Left stands for. The so-called moderates or centrists are not centered at all and in fact are unstable mixtures of the moral with the immoral. A combustible and deadly mixture of food and arsenic poisoning. A muddled and unprincipled, very much pragmatic mixture between a little bit of support for the Right social system and the wrong or evil one.

Contrary to what the video claims right vs left is absolutely the differences that matter. The right which is Capitalism; pure, true, unbridled and lassiez-faire Capitalism vs The left anti-Capitalists and the moderate muddled middle half anti-capitalists. This does not mean one could not use bottom and top as other symbols of individual rights vs statism. However, I think that even if one sees this is an alternative spectrum that does not invalidate or change the fact that what it calls the top is simply Right it is rightism irregardless of if the label is being changed. There is a right VS left that does matter and there being an alternative label does not change the content being the same. It is like saying I am straight or heterosexual. Deciding to use one label does not mean that it is not simply an interchanging of different references of the same essential. One does not remove the other.

If you define as top on the bottom to top spectrum it would be wrong to not define the essentials of and defend the right on a right vs left compass or spectrum. Capitalism is the social system of the right vs all the other compromises of the moderates and the authoritarianism of the left. The right means individual rights, individualism and the legal recognition of the mind/independent thought. The moderate middle compromises with the anti-mind and the left is the completely anti-mind and thus anti-life. Freedom is right VS varying levels of compromise with unjust force and authority up to the level of actual tyranny. The right belongs to the morally right, to the justly right and the socially right. To the only moral and truly humane social system. Capitalism equals rightism and rightism equals Capitalism.

Objectivism VS The Objectivist and libertarian movements

The philosophy of Objectivism is separate from a movement based on the namesake. In addition Objectivism is also not the libertarian movement and is in fact quite different from it. This does not mean that one cannot be an Objectivist and support a Capital L Libertarian Party Candidate or even be a member of said party. (Although Diana Brickell from Philosophy In Action whom I greatly admire presents the counter case on her podcast.) One needs to distinct movements from people in order do understand why I say this. As well as movements from individual parties or party members.

I fully agree with Diana Brickell that Objectivism and the libertarian movement are not inherently allies. In fact, there is a fair portion of the broader libertarian movement that is filled with relativistic and subjectivistic types of people. It is also filled to the brim with Anarcho-Capitalists and anarchy supporting factions. 

I also agree with Diana that anarchism is a majority in the broader libertarian movement and has been since the movement began. I, in addition agree that anarchism in any form leads to a world just as bad if not worse than the tyrannies of the various overbearing governments on the world stage. However, it is the libertarian movement that I feel Objectivists need to stay away from or any rational person. Not anything with the label Libertarian on it persay. There is a difference between a Capital L Libertarian Party member or supporter and agreeing with the broader small l libertarian movement as a whole. 

I agree with Ayn Rand actually that the lower l libertarian movement is basically the hippies of the right. However, I also do not think this is the same as Capital L Libertarian support at all. One denotes supporting a specific political Party and its platforms. While the lower case l is to agree with the idea that all that matters is a Non-Aggression Axiom devoid of any foundation or reason to support it. It also may or may not consist of a view that acknowledges protection of rights due to this mistake in primary premises. 

However, the various Libertarian Parties all over the world are all very different. Some do condone and even support the disaster that is anarchism. As well as supporting subjectivism and nihilism on top of that. While other Libertarian Parties are fully for limited government and go out of there way to provide evidence for their limited government stances. I know one leader of a Party that is specifically anti-anarchist in his platform as it calls for very moderate proposals. He also too like me is an Objectivist as well. 

There are some Libertarian Parties and institutes people of reason and reality should not associate with or support. These would be any Parties endorsing unreason or even non-reason. Any Parties that fully support, endorse or fail to call out the anti-rights view of anarchism. These Parties one should not provide support and cover for. This would also be institutions of "liberty" that support or push anarchism as the ideal. Or any institutions which proclaim reality does not exist as a primary value or view. 

However, one needs to take an individualistic stance when dealing with libertarians, Libertarians and Libertarian Parties. Some are part of the broader lower case intellectual movement and are supportive of very bad ideas and others are just fine. Also, one should never judge individual libertarians as less than good just because they are libertarians as you might be speaking to someone just as anti-anarchist and pro-reason as you are. It needs to be taken on a case by case basis in regards to this specific rule of thumb.

I want to also mention something else as well this time to do with The Objectivist Movement as well. Not everyone that claims to be an Objectivist is going to be fully using reason either. There are a sizable amount of people that become Objectivist in label, but, use it as an easy justification for being a dickhead or even abusive. Diana Bickell calls these people Predatory Egoists. People whom claim the mantel of Objectivist or Rational Egoism only to fully ignore the need for being ethical or rational. Essentially using the "movement" and involvement in it as a way of controlling others or becoming Pseudo-Authorities of Objecrtivism to laud over people.

Being an Objectivist is no indication on whether someone will be fully understanding of the need for virtues to gain values. Nor understand what the virtues mean nor understand that mistreatment is not being egoistic, but, instead is being a bully, dogmatists, insular and a horrible human being. Once again one needs to take an individualistic treatment and acknowledge Objectivism is not a collective of its own. Some people will be claiming to be so and not even understand the philosophy they claim to represent. Others will know the philosophy, but, misuse it. Some are just plain toxic people and would be toxic without the philosophy. If someone is already toxic becoming self loving even more would push them to be even more toxic. People can be evil with any label. 

In short, Objectivism is not libertarianism and is not libertarian it is Objectivism. However, one can be supportive of the better Libertarians and love/admire and even associate with individual libertarians just like any other individual that is not an Objectivst. If Objectivists judged all other people as being worthy of benevolence and good will on the basis of sharing our same philosophy Objectivism would indeed be the very cult its detractors claim it is. If this were true I would flee from it as I do from Religion which IS a cult. 

Capitalism is only truly moral social system available to human kind

 

Removing Sanction of Anarchopocco and David "Lizard People" Icke.

Today I broke my own promise to not go onto Social Media while working on my own personal issues. As I looked through my personal updates feed I saw a post that made me need to unlike and remove sanction from an upcoming liberty event. It is called Anarchopocco and at some point I had sanctioned it while agreeing to disagree on anarchism. However, when I saw their list of speakers for this year I had no choice, but, to remove my support for the event.

The event is filled with quacks that are insane and should not be sanctioned by anyone that is not a nut. The list includes the likes of David "lizards rule the world" Icke. This is not a gathering of liberty lovers based on the facts they find that liberty is possible and works. This is a gathering of tinfoil hat wearing nuts that are like minded and basically are like a New Age Cult. Some people going are sane, but, they are the exception.

I refuse to give any moral sanction nor follow the exploits of a bunch of quacks which make individual rights means that reality does not exist and that facts do not matter. Anyone that sees this event will think that all libertarians are nutjobs that think the entire world is a prison out to get them. I do not endorse nor support Alex Jones as a so-called defender of Liberty. I refuse to sanction or endorse David Icke either. It is one thing to be open and tolerant. It is another thing to have such an open mind that your brain falls and the remains are no longer functionally active.

I, here forth refuse to ever sanction this event as a legitimate expression of any true liberty based in any facts of reality. I refuse to deem the event as worthy of my time and would like to express that other reality and facts based liberty lovers to not associate with this group of delusional quacks. It is already in the culture that liberty is somehow associated with hatred of the State and not consistent principles of non-coercion. Not too mention being associated with conspiracy nuts like this all too often as well. Conspiracy theorists are not the friends of individual rights and human rights respecting governance.

What is cultural libertarianism exactly?

Earlier today I found an interesting article on Reason.com about the Brietbart decision to use cultural liberarianism to define the movement against PC and Social Justice Political Correctness authoritarians on the far-far left. It made me think about what a truly libertarian culture would be and if it would match the definition as given by Brietbart. I found myself in agreement that the definition used seemed to simply be the civil libertarian aspect of the broader libertarian philosophy. 

However, while thinking through things I wonder if Brietbart realizes what a truly libertarian culture would entail. It would essentially be a culture where the moral philosophy was a form of the political philosophy known as libertarianism. What would this look like though? Would it match what Breitbart thinks it would? It would allow for freedom of speech for sure, but, it would also allow for so much more than that as well. 

A cultural libertarianism would be essentially a culture that thrived on methodological individualism. In other words one in which each individual lives their life according to their own wishes as long as they harmed none or their property was literally the foundation of culture itself. It means the conservatives at Breitbart would no longer care about socially conservative values. They would allow people that were traditionalists to live said way and also the most contrarian in their own words "degenerate." They would have no claim that "degeneracy" was even a thing as the only thing dictating morals would be whether or not you are treating others as sacrificial animals via some form of forced sacrifice to the "other."

Pornography would not only be legal, but, a moral institution that any religious demoralization against would be seen as an immoral call to sacrifice ones lively hood for the sake of a theocratic state. Similarly, all non coerced sex acts between unrelated adults of the proper age of consent no matter the biological sex or number would be seen as morally good. Sex, real sex, not the corrupted perversion of a predator would need to be seen as a good in of itself because it is a celebration of a primal aspect of life in a safe modern environment. Or at least Risk Aware and fully consensual.

That anything that people choose to do between consenting adults period through mutual informed and understood consent to mutual benefit. As long as it was not harming third parties (which would be illegal in this culture not only immoral) that this would would be seen as the moral good. So, prostitution the worlds oldest profession should not only be legal, but, is a moral and good living for those engaged in it via consensual means. Drug use, as it is not initiating coercion on others, and is using your own body as you see fit would be a moral good. That is of course as long as it is not accompanied by say using it and then driving or using it and then disturbing the peace. Not just pot, but, all drugs are moral. As this would be a culture based on libertarian philosophy also being the determinant of what is good or bad culturally. 

Abortion, if you are a Pro-choice libertarian would not only become the lay of the law. Instead, the fact that you can abort and that you would find the child impeding your own happiness would be the moral good, Being Anti-abortion would thus become seen as the immoral and the pro-abortion stance would become the pro-life stance. Due to it being pro the life of the self-determined couple or single woman to pursue their happiness as they see fit. To not be a sacrifice to a potential life they did not consent to have to raise simply from having hot and heavy sex with loose seed. Abortion itself would become seen as the cultural good and to be against it a cultural evil. 

Similar to this though it would be immoral to try to stop someone from spouting anti-abortion rhetoric using the force of the state. As these people would also need to be seen as morally good if they are not harming others or their property. It would especially be vile for one to stop a anti-abortion person whom did not believe in forcing legislation, but, they themselves to a liberty stance that simply were not culturally libertarian. 

Or it could also go the opposite way too. It would be a double edged sword for there are pro-life libertarians for them this would mean that the overall culture would need to embrace their ethics in their view to become culturally libertarian. As to a pro-life libertarian it is anti-libertarian to be pro-choice in this area as it is the killing of a fellow innocent human. Which means in a culturally libertarian world for them it would mean both complete agreement under the law with granting from conception rights, but, also that the entire culture are in lockstep culturally with this move as well. 

We now see the issues with cultural libertarianism as lovely as it sounds at first. I am not arguing against a culture of liberty, but, there are some issues with trying to make culture conform only to libertarianism broadly. By this I mean the idea that all people everywhere in our culture should agree that as long as something is not coerced it is necessarily still OK, or good behavior or not self-destructive or even destructive without violence of the others around said person. This does not mean that we should not have a culture of liberty, but, it does mean that the real world is complex. There is no way to have every single person agree with this statement. Unless you are in favor of literally brainwashing anyone that disagrees into agreeing. 

What I mean to say is some people will still be more culturally conservative and or puritan. No matter even if the majority of the culture is more socially libertarian if you will. Some people will really not budge on the matters of sexual decency and the matters of drug use. Some people will always believe abortion is murder and some people will always believe it the actual pro-life view. However, I contend there is one form in which a culture can be both libertarian and also not be needing in fact a form of conformity in not conforming at all. That is a culture not of anything being good, but, communities about some definitive things being bad. 

That is if we have a culture in which the prevailing mindset is the government should protect our rights and let us be free to make up our own decisions on our moral frameworks. Where-ever you end up falling without trying to make it, so, that everyone thinks anything goes even if it is legal. You can have a culture which embraces proper rules of law, proper constitutional constraints and proper parliaments where they exist. A culture which says not you have to say anything goes because it is legal. Instead a culture that says I can think anything consensual is good, but, I have no right to try to condition my fellow humans into agreeing with me. A culture which says I might think anything is consensual is good, but, you are free to disagree and I still recognize your humanity within. 

We can have a culture like this without needing to have everyone agree with those whom are totally culturally libertarian. We can have people with all kinds of opinions on things as long as they do not try try to force it down our throats it is fine. This could be considered the best possible compromise for those whom do want to extend libertarianism to its own secular moral frame work within culture and those whom simply want libertarianism to remain a political philosophy. By essentially keeping it just that a philosophy on what the proper role of states are and not trying to persuade every single individual to have a completely anything peaceful is moral outlook. By separating political philosophy about the role of the government and justice from needing to be what guides your every thought or every decision. Essentially make it so the political is not the personal and vice versa. 

This does not mean that a complete live and let live attitude in your own moral framework is not the logical and rational end point of libertarian political philosophy. Nor does the fact that it is ones possible extension of the philosophy into morality mean that is in fact the most logical outlook. The point of this article is that there is a lot of diversity in opinion on many matters that libertarians want to make legal. We should not be looking for a future world where we snap our fingers and everyone agrees with us like a Magic Act in Vegas. We need to be open to a world of tolerance and toleration of a multiplicity of views on morality. As long as most people of each morality refrains from forcing or coercing the other into accepting said worldview. In this sense a cultural libertarianism only works if people are free to disagree with each other; even with the very concept of libertarianism itself. 

Confessions of an Ex-Anarcho-Libertarian

It was the year 2012, I lived on University Avenue and I was an anarchocapitalist. It was something I was very proud of at the time because I thought it was the most logical conclusion of the libertarian non-coercion principle. For those whom do not know what anarchocapitalism is it is a wing of the libertarian movement which thinks the ultimate end goal of libertarianism is a stateless society. The reason for needing to get rid of the state is because all states by being monopolies backed by coercion are morally illegitimate. Thus statelessness is the end goal to an AnCap and not just a limited government.

However, before you think I was in favor of something I was not let me explain what I had considered a stateless society or Anarchic-Capitalism to look like. It was not what some people whom use the terminology anarcho-capitalism might use it to mean. My vision of what this world looked like will also explain why I was so easily persuaded by what would be considered the traditional Auberon Herbert "Volumtaryist Creed." The original Voluntaryism was not anarchistic, but, instead was a term for a radical advocate for limited government against all forms of initiating coercion. Limited Government Libertarians and Objectivism in politics are the modern incarnations closest to the original Voluntaryism.

Amarchocapitalism to me did not mean as some use it now a market in law creation based on peoples whims. It did not mean a subjectivist wet dream or chaos creators dream environment. Anarchocapitalism meant to me a world where no state existed, but, in its place was an objective agreed to libertarian legal code. This code would be objective and mandatory to follow with laws that if broken were punishable using retaliatory force. I was essentially for a completely private and stateless world, but, not for a lawless one. What I was for was for was the privatization of everything that moves and everything that does not move (as it was worded by Walter Block). However, it being done under the coordination of a libertarian legal code. It would have laws all private entities would need to follow, but, not enforced by a state enforced by private police, courts and so forth.

However, said private entities would not be able to do whatever they wanted. It would be reigned in by said libertarian legal code. Which would include things like making pollution based externalizations being considered infringements on the individual rights of other people that would be affected by it. Pollution would be treated as an invasion of all of your neighbors property rights and dealt with accordingly. Once again though there would be no state no one entity with a monopoly backed by the use of initiatory coercion. Instead all of the laws would be enforced and agreed upon by all private entities involved. If you did not want to agree or if you broke them you would be dealt with accordingly. However, you would be enforced to act accordingly by all the other entities that did agree with the law code and it would be these other entities that you would need to deal with.

It was this always supporting a Mono-Centric and agreed upon legal code that helped lead me out of anarcho-libertarianism and back into minarchism. It led me to rethink if a world without a government to enforce the legal code on others would be able to make people fall into line with not harming others or their property. After all in a world without such an entity could you really expect the numerous private cops, courts and such to police other same entities on the market? What if not enough entities agreed to the legal code? What if some agreed and others did not at such high amounts it caused civil wars in the streets between policing companies?

Then I discovered Objectivism and that helped me discover minarchism could be completely consistent with the defense of individual rights. In fact, in between that and doing further reading I realized it was the only way to consistently enforce the non-harm of people or property on a large scale. Governments are required for enforcing the very libertarian legal code Murray Rothbard said would need to exist to have a libertarian world. However, I still have an ideal of a free society that has not changed at all. I just have a different vision of what that entails. My views are along the lines of the traditional "Voluntaryists Creed." In fact, all Objectivists in their politics would fall into the creed of that classic document of human liberty. Even if you disagree with Ayn Rand's views on egoism and selfishness on politics her ideal end state is very similar to Auberon Herbert.

In the end I never changed having a political and economical moral code based on non-initiation of harm or coercion. I simply discovered my methods to getting there would not really defend the individual human rights I was an AnCap to spread to the world. The reason I changed my mind is because I am serious about peaceful and voluntary life. Anarchism I found could not create and maintain a free, peaceful and prosperous society for all. However, my current form of radical minarchism if you will is a more realistic and possible path to that end goal of freedom for all peaceful people.     

The Dangerous Trumpism takeover of The Republican Party and the death of constitutional-classical liberal conservatism

At one time to be a Republican meant to be for limited government, prosperity and equality of rights under the law. It meant to be in other words to be a Classical Liberal. Being a Republican Conservative meant to want to conserve the Bill of Rights and Constitution. To maintain and conserve government at its most realistically limited amount. To be a Republican meant to be pro the Republic of the United States for which it stands. It meant to be very similar to what the eventually existing libertarian and Objectivist politics would be; albeit not as radical or extreme persay.

A good day to explain The Republican Party and its past is that it was very similar to Maxime Bernier's wing of The Conservative Party of Canada. There are more Quasi-Republican's in the modern Conservative Party here in Canada than seems to be in the after Trump Republican Party. When you have Republicans on Fox News singing the praises of Trump wanting to apply Tariff's to trade we are in a twilight zone world where Republicanism and the Republican Party has been thrown on its head.

One of the things that at least in recent history those whom are center left, moderate, center right and right-wing have all agreed on is free trade is good and the freer the better. That Globalization and Free Trade are good. No matter how we argue about taxation with people on the left or argue about regulations with people whom are not as pure capitalist as the libertarians. All of us have realized the truth that free trade and global capitalism is good. Even if we disagree on again the use of government force through various means. We all agreed that Free Trade is good and worth it.

Republicans in the US though have always been some of the strongest proponents of free trade and of trade deals. They were pro-NAFTA, and most even supported the TPP prior to Trumpism winning that debate. To see that Republicans seem to be collectivizing around Trumps anti-free trade, pro-protectionist and Nationalism on crack vision is very troubling. I was under the impression Republican's were fighting off being a collective that was OK with Trumpism. However, everywhere I look I see Republicans drinking the Kool-aide and forgetting why they are Republicans.

I have not seen many of them talk about limited government lately except maybe Rand Paul and the Freedom Caucus. The fact that the Tariff's are not having as much blow back as there should be is quite troubling and it seems the Republican Party has lost its way. It no longer supports Republicanism even anymore. Instead it has become a soup of people whom are collectivists, but, whom hate the left for various reasons on place of a defined view with real principles or integrity.

This is very dangerous because one needs to know what they stand for. It is not enough to know what you are against you need to stand for something in it's place. If you do not stand for something you will fall for anything. I fear Republican and limited government forms of conservatism is being overgrown by a horror of tribalism and a new collectivism calling itself "the conservative movement." A collectivism built around anything not left which is in fact standing for nothing at all. Very easy to manipulate by any Charismatic leader that claims to be conservative no matter how horrid.

Methodological Individualism is the answer!

Objectivism VS Libertarianism or Objectivism & Libertarianism?

There has long been a turf war on The Right between the right-libertarians and Objectivism. When I state the term The Right I mean those views whom support government limited to the protection of an individuals human rights. Those whom want a moral and practical government that sticks to the protection of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. There is going to be some that will disagree with this definition and say neither Objectivism nor libertarians are on the Right. For those that prefer using a Nolan Chart both views would be North Wing.

The intellectual turf war was long in the making beginning when Ayn Rand herself trashed The Libertarian Party in the US and the broader movement based on said party embracing Anarcho-Capitalism. Ayn Rand felt that libertarians stole her non-initiation of coercion principle, robbed it of its foundations leaving it a floating abstraction without reason for existing and then called it their own "axiom." For those unaware an axiom is something that is self-evident and does not require an underlying reasoning behind it. However, the non-initiation of coercion or force requires legs to stand it is an end and not a beginning.

This floating way of using NAP is what makes Libertarians embrace anarcho-capitalism which is a contradiction in terms. Capitalism is the social system in which initiation of coercion/force/harm to others and their property is barred via an Objectively defined rule of law. It is a world in which force is limited under Objectively defined hands to being used only in retaliation. It is a world that cannot coexist with a market bases for laws and force. As a proper and free market cannot exist if there is no stability of rules and no monopoly on force in objective and reasonable hands. You cannot trade without a rule of law and Objectively defined rules against harming others and their property.

There can be no Capitalism with anarchism as well due to human nature. Human nature is very hierarchical and anarchism makes the assumption that freed of a State humans would not naturally find the equivalent within a state of nature. Humans will always naturally produce a form of government over time and it is inevitable due to evolutionary-psychology being highly tribal. This government will then need to be fought to be limited and ones tribal side will need to be counterbalanced by a thoroughgoing use of reason and embracing of individualism or else it leads to collectivism.

Libertarians often have a view that ex-nihlo NAP comes out of nothing and that it is all that is required for a political view to exist. This is where Objectivism and Libertarianism diverge strongly and the infighting on the "freedom" Right or North Wing begin. In order to get to non-initiation of coercion of force to exist it must come out of broader philosophy to make any sense. You need an epistemological and metaphysical reason why force or coercion is evil is wrong and should not be done. Without a broader framework which includes a reality based moral code there is no reason to be in favor of NIFP, NAP, or ZAP. Why should the State not initiate force? You need to say why and it needs to be based in reality. Thus the important of starting at epistemology and metaphysics the two bases of our knowledge of existence and nature itself.

By leaving this part out the broader libertarian movement opens itself up to contradictions that can be used to claim next to anything is libertarian. Not only anarcho-capitalism, but, even so-called left-libertarians and so-called voluntary socialists or mutualists. There is no concrete libertarian from non-libertarian and the movement has been unfortunately infested with people claiming to support things such as anti-capitalism free (d) markets. Which is a contradiction in terms and when questioned they tend to be against the very foundations of private property the free market requires to exist. These folks are essentially the heirs of Benjamin Tucker classic Socialism and have no place in any movement that is supposed to be for defending the social system of Free Market Capitalism.

However, due to libertarianisms incoherence these people go uncalled out within even the Libertarian Parties themselves. Yet, there are those that are both Libertarians in the Capital L sense and also Objectivists. Is this a contradiction in terms? Is this people getting in with the wrong crowd? I do not think so because what I think will revive the proper foundations for a Libertarian Party will be more Objectivism-friendly Libertarians. Also, Objectivism does not own the primacy of existence and the need for a broader philosophy for liberty. It is simply (in my opinion and I admit my bias here) the most coherent way of integrating the desperate philosophical frameworks into a proper concrete form of moral philosophy for liberty.

However, you can have an integrated framework that is not Objectivist, but, still is based on reality being primary and the various virtues found in Objectivism as well. For example; one could base everything on reality, use reason as a means of acquiring knowledge and end up rejecting the virtue of selfishness due to thinking it means rejecting empathy and benevolence towards others. Of course, this would be incorrect and assuming an untruthful packaged deal. However, as long as they are not saying to sacrifice others pursuit of their happiness for the sake of the collective it is still not an immoral framework to live by. It simply misunderstands the nature of enlightened and rational egoism.

If this is what a particular Libertarian calls for at a broader philosophical level there is no contradiction in the terms. One could be both a Libertarian and be an ally of the fundamentals espoused by Objectivism. Going even further if one is an Objectivist and in the Libertarian Party to enact politically the political/economical framework of Objectivism there is no contradiction at all. In this case one would be essentially an Objectivist-Libertarian and be both politically Libertarian and Objectivist due to party affiliation. Further more Objectivism is not the whole of philosophy moral or otherwise. It is part of all great and true philosophy which includes much outside of Objectivism as well as within.

Objectivism does not hold a monopoly on good ideas nor does it have a monopoly on the virtues within itself. There are other philosophies which do hold to the primacy of reality, reason and proper self-esteem. Objectivism is not a religion or an insular dogma that Objectivists must evangelize all of the World into accepting or else the world is doomed to hell. Objectivism is not a cult which requires that the world become converted to its worldview and rejects all those whom are not within its boundaries of thought. Even if some prominent Objectivists have acted like it is at times and became the very dogmatic, religious minded and insular cultist individuals they rail against. Objectivism is not the problem certain Objectivists and their misunderstandings of the philosophy is the problem.

When you meet a Libertarian ask them why they support Libertarian Parties and what their principles are. Why they have those principles and get down to the legs that stand up the need for barring coercion/harm of others and their property/initiation of force/fraud. If they are basing it on reason, the facts of reality, basing it on requirements for living on Earth applaud them and they should get your support. Even if they come to some different conclusions from Objectivism they are living in reality and using reason as their guide. They are living in the primacy of existence they are living the virtues without the label even if they do not accept Objectivism as such. The most important thing of all before Objectivism even comes into play is living in reality and being guided by the facts.

This means when you meet a Libertarian living in reality, guided by the facts and with a properly functioning secular-humanist moral code these people are your allies even if they vehemently disregard Objectivism. People whom are Objectivists need to realize there is more philosophy out their than just Rand's and even if she is right does not mean other philosophies are evil or your enemy. I agree that Objectivism does match the facts of reality and that is why I am still one. However, again it is only one part of a greater whole which is all good and true philosophy out there based on reason and truth being the guide. You cannot tell if someone will be a good person or vile based only on being an Objectivist or not.

In the same vein you cannot tell if a Libertarian will be a nihilistic anarchist or a reason based limited government advocate based on the label alone. You cannot tell if they will understand existence exists and reality is based on reason or if they will be a subjectivist simply based on their party affiliation or label alone. Anymore than you can tell if someone will have accepted the reality of evolutionary-psychology or not just because they are an Objectivist. Or if they have Rand's view of homosexual activity as being disgusting or not based on being an Objectivist. One needs to know the individual Libertarian or Objectivist to know if they are in fact living in reality and not rationalizing their "beliefs" using the lenses of either viewpoint. Individualism is the answer to all this infighting.

First and foremost the "freedom" Right or the North Wing needs to remember they are methodological individualists and to not collectivize "Objectivists" nor "Libertarians." There are disgusting, vile horrible human beings that are both of these things and also neither of these things.
I would argue that Objectivists that are rightfully worried about the state of libertarianism need to infuse libertarianism with reality being real, with reason as a guide to life and defense of Capitalism "Only Capitalism," with all its features that leftie libertarians do not like. Objectivists should defend a Rightest-Libertarianism based on Classical Liberal limited government lassiez-faire Capitalist principles. It should point out the contradictions in any leftist supporting or sympathizing libertarianism.

The Objectivist whom is a Libertarian needs to make sure that Capitalism and Limited Government are the bulwarks of the broader libertarian movement. One needs to make sure one does not mistake the Right-Libertarian Limited Government pro-Capitalist stance for an anarchist chaos of no rules and of stateless markets of law. In other words it is the prevalence of anarchists in the Libertarian Parties that Objectivists and non-Objecitivsts or even anti-Objectivists alike need to ally together to keep to the sidelines of the movement. One should be as fervent in denouncing anarchist libertarians  as denouncing the dogmatic type of Objectivist whom would never work with a Non-Objectivist on anything in this world.

In conclusion far from distancing ones self from Libertarianism an Objectivist should be making sure the movement and parties stick to proper philosophy and principles. Objectivism and other reality, reason and fact based philosophies need to be shown as being the foundations for the parties and broader movement. We need to get rid of the anarchists that will bring stateless chaos and instead ground Libertarianism itself in a love for reality, truth and the virtue of pursuing ones own rational happiness. Whether Libertarians ever embrace the term selfishness or even come to this same conclusion is in the long run irrelevant. What is relevant is that The Right and The North (depending on your political landscape) become interchanged for meaning reason guided limited government advocates based in the facts of reality and the free market. The principles matter above all else.

The Good, The Bad and the Downright Ugly from "The New Libertarian."

Recently a big controversy was spurned on within the broader liberty movement by a speech done by Jeff Deist the most recent President of The Ludwig Van Mises Institute in the US. It was entitled, "For The New Libertarian." It was an incredibly long speech coming in at a total of about 40 minutes.  It covered many topics, but, some at more length than others. Why was it so controversial? Two words, "blood and soil."

The speech ended in the following line;

In other words, blood and soil and God and nation still matter to people. Libertarians ignore this at the risk of irrelevance.

One might wonder why such a line at the end of a speech would cause such fuss and it is a good question. I am sure most people would see this line and not think anything of it. However, those whom know their history were quick to come to the forefront with the origin of the words blood and soil. You see the term goes back a long time to Germany right before the rise of The Third Reich and the Nazis.

Blood and soil (German: Blut und Boden) is a slogan expressing the nineteenth-century German idealization of a racially defined national body ("blood") united with a settlement area ("soil"). By it, rural and farm life forms are not only idealized as a counterweight to urban ones, but are also combined with racist and anti-Semitic ideas of a sedentary Germanic-Nordic peasantry as opposed to (specifically Jewish) nomadism. The contemporary German concept Lebensraum, the belief that the German people needed to reclaim historically German areas of Eastern Europe into which they could expand, is tied to it.

"Blood and soil" was a key slogan of Nazi ideology. The nationalist ideology of Artamanen and the writings of Walther Darré guided Nazi agricultural policies which were later adopted by Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and Baldur von Schirach.

This has lead many libertarians to jump on Jeff Deist calling him out as being either Nazi or dog-whistling to Nazis that they have a home aligned with the libertarian movement. In addition to the massively unnerving ending I saw something else which was just as eerie and also just as dangerous. That was a call to replace a Constitutional Representative Republic called the United States of America with a new America based on decentralized and secession built around "family, God, society." So, instead of a limited government with a separation of Church and State the society itself becomes consumed by family and God. There is a word for this sort of society it is called a Theocratic Wet Dream.

In truth it was a call to several vile ideas. It was a call to ditch anything coming in between the Church brainwashing everyone and or coercing those whom are not. On top of that much was made about tribes and clans. About extended families and extended kinship. Not as to extend the kin to others, but, whom would you be willing to fight for. A call to barbarism and a return to us going back into clans and tribes. That it are these tribes that stop people from doing immoral things as these clans represent civil society and civilization not a bunch of individuals co-operating. That it is either get with a "voluntary" tribe or you have Statism and oppression.

What might you ask of those whom do not want a tribe? Those whom want to just be individualized human beings co-operating with other individuals in a free market alone or in groups, but, with the individual being primary? Well, that kind of person is vile a moral nihilist, not libertarian. According to Jeff Deist a free society will in fact cause the world to be less libertine and not more. His future sees a world where cultural conservatism thrives because "libertine" is a outgrowth of the state breaking up things like the family and faith. That "they" want you to think of yourself as an individual without a tribe.

Whom is "they?" The Evil ones, the ones that want a World Supra-national State and the ones that are Pro-Globalism. The Globalists that believe in those horrid Free-Trade Deals and whom are supposedly conspiring towards a Global Central Bank which was kick-started by the creation of the IMF. The EU, NATO, NGO's all with the same One World Agenda. They want you to feel like you do not have a tribe, they want to remove Faith from humanity and they want us to not see pride for those especially in the same clan or tribe. "They" want this and that according to the speech. "They" want us to be pushed towards sexual expression and the list goes on.

"So of course it attempts to break down families by taking kids away from them as early as possible, indoctrinating them in state schools, using welfare as a wedge, using the tax code as a wedge, discouraging marriage and large families, in fact discouraging any kind of intimacy that is not subject to public scrutiny, encouraging divorce, etc. etc."

OK, I am no fan of how Welfare has taken a toll on families myself. Nor, do I agree with tax codes or welfare being used as wedges which they are often these days. Hell, I am not even against large families if that is what two people consent to take part in. However, the idea that there is some over-arching Globalist "Illuminati" or "protocols of Zion" level conspiracy that is making the world less culturally conservative is insane and beyond words. The idea that if you got rid of the State or State intervention the world would be mainly conservative is as silly as a a culturally liberal or libertine person saying it would be come majority their lifestyle. Blaming the lack of your personal values in the world on like an Empire Style Jedi Mind Trick on the masses by the Globalists is beyond retarded.

From here he goes on to increasingly more and more talk about self-determination, and secession being the main goals of the libertarian movement. With smaller and more local being better. With also taking nodes to working with those we have most in common with and creating a clan or tribe with those most like us. That we are closest to this group over some other group. He also asserts that politics is not universal and one should not care that gays get killed in Saudi Arabia and so forth. That universalism is a siren song of Globalists. That in fact universalism is an affront to nature and to natural rights itself.

He finishes off by telling the listener to think about what they would think was worth fighting for. No, he does not mean metaphorically. He means really fight with actual violence and talks about once again your kin, your family, your community, your religion, and also includes the nation. He finishes off this bluster about fighting for your people with the quote I mentioned earlier. However, it is not all horrid and vile. There is one section that contains an insight most libertarians do not want to confront often.

He does mention that we do have human nature and that libertarian institutions need to take this into account. He actually talks about the fact in various other words we are animals and this ironically is the best defense for the limited government style of libertarian thought which Jeff himself loves to hate on. He is a complete anarchist and thus his hate for all things United States and his love for secession. For his hatred of the separation of Church and State as well. He protests the idea that some libertarians have that simply instituting libertarianism will make Non-Coercion man qua man's tendency. I entirely agree, but, it is man's not adhering to said principle so often that makes it so important to uphold Objective rules of law and individual rights. Thus why a limited representative government is required.

The one decent section of his speech actually disqualifies his own notion of a free society being Stateless and based on something other than government. Which means anything else he says passed it by his own logic is a delusional utopia, or as I see it dystopia of the worst order. He also is obsessed with size of the government due to his anarchism over what it is doing. Is it protecting rights? Or invading them? If it is protecting rights than it is a moral government. Not only that, but, secession does not equal non-aggression either. Secession was the siren call of those whom wanted to keep Slavery legal.

When it comes to Jeff Deist and his ideas that he likes to call so-called libertarianism. Well, there is a small, small sliver of admitting to human nature which is the good. However, the rest of his views are running from the bad to downright nightmarish. Is he a Nazi though? He never really said anything about the Jews and he never said anything about White power or anything. However, he did rally up the fire for a tribe like us, a community like us and a clan of those most like us. He never mentioned they had to be the same color or even the same religion. He did make needing a religion pretty present though and sure does not like the idea of individualism at all.

I think Nazi is actually too kind of a word as it is only stating one form of what this really is. A return to tribal, barbarism surrounded by any key component. It is nothing, but, pure collectivism of the worst kind. The kind wrapped up in a so called freedom bow. The call goes out to everyone to form collectives and defend them with violence if needed. To consider themselves Sovereign over their own land and to seceded in their minds from any USA even existing. To form as he calls it a Nation of Consent among tribes all over the World. To fight those whom are willing to break up said tribes. To breed at a high rate within said tribes and to overpopulate those outside of your tribe. Including overpopulating all the non-libertarian tribes. All those evil Statists that believe the Government is real and has authority.

This is the talk of someone that can spread very, very dangerous views, but, the majority of people can see them for the crazy they really are and just like me denounce them for the scum they are.

https://mises.org/wire/new-libertarian

Libertarianism, Conservatism and Objectivism

A lot of times people tend to do one of two things with people whom are in favor of liberty. They either call them conservatives or will apply that they are more conservative in nature. However, if one looks at the libertarian view which is individual rights for all and what said people consider conservative they are not similar in policy usually. These people consider libertarians to somehow support views that are more aligned with the Religious resurfacing and the Moral Majority.

Of course, this makes no sense at all. Libertarians/Objectivists do not support the sort of policies that the Moral Majority support. However, one needs to point out that this is wrong for more than just the allying of libertarianism with micromanaging policies. The truth is that the idea that conservatives are naturally against freedom for people from various lifestyles is itself a mistake and unfounded. Whereas one whom is libertarian often thinks conservatism does not go far enough one should not accuse any specific conservative as being a religious agenda pushing monster either.

This is something that libertarianism is bad for as well. The assumption that a conservative is some statism supporting busy body that wants to micromanage peoples lives. The truth is that libertarians and Objectivists can find a good deal of agreement of support from the "classical liberal" breed of conservatism. Conservatism can mean conserving freedom and classical liberal values. This breed of conservatism which is based on the classical liberal political values shared by libertarians and Objectivism is at home right next to Objectivism and libertarianism on the individual rights respecting side of the political spectrum.

When someone is a conservative one needs to ask them what they support or do not support. It is very possible they are a conservative classical liberal and not the kind that most people seem to think of when they hear the term. In fact, the Moral Majority and Religious Right types are on the fringe of the overall modern conservative movement. At least in Canada and for the most part in the US as well now. Take for example Same Sex Marriage; most conservatives support this now. Or the Drug War a good deal of them are finding it is not helping and should be abolished. A conservative whom is a classical liberal is a natural ally of individual rights and should be accepted as a part of the broader individual rights or liberty movement.

This does not mean we should not criticize conservatives if they try to push religion on people. Nor does it mean Objectivists should stop criticizing Altruism and religion for the evils that they are. If someone tries to base their views on unreality their mistakes in reasoning need to be pointed out and critiqued. Nor does it mean that Objectivists nor libertarians should switch to identifying as conservative instead of their current political identity. However, if one did that would be up to the individual judgment of their individual mind. If one wanted to identify as a conservative that was grounded in Objectivism or grounded in a relationship with reality VS religion that is up to them. Said person would not become thine enemy for doing so.

I just think the automatic judgment that conservatism is the enemy of liberty that some in the liberty movement have needs to be challenged by the facts that in fact show this to be a generalization. A collectivization ironically of every single person whom is a conservative holding the same constitution in their minds. I do not know quite a few conservatives and also Capital C Conservatives within my own Country of Canada. The Canadian Conservative Party is filled with classical liberals, libertarians and even Rand supporters although they might disagree with the whole selfishness thing. The Republican Party has an entire caucus of libertarian conservatives.

I am not one of these people whom are going around screaming to Unite the Right. I think that would be just as collectivist as saying for us to not trust any conservatives at all. However, not being paranoid that someone whom is not a libertarian is somehow a tyrannical despot. The same can go for meeting people in life in general. One should never assume that we are surrounded by slave driving malevolent humans that want to have other people serve them as slaves. Not libertarian and not Objectivist is not codeword for dictator in the making. This outlook causes one to have a fear and even a hate for their fellow man as opposed to seeing them as possible values in ones life. It helps to dehumanize others and form an out group. This does no one any good.
\

Confessions of a 30 year old Objectivist

Recently I was in a conversation with one of my friends and the head of the Ontario Libertarian Party. Specifically about Objectivism, the denial of Evolutionary Psychology by the people at the Ayn Rand Institute and Objectivism the philosophy. During the conversation we went over how the Institute still believed in a blank slate human without innateness. Which I am against as all of our current science says it is wrong. We have natures based on many things; from chromosomes to the Androgen bath in-utero. The denying this is to deny science.

I mentioned it was ironic as reality is the arbiter is one of the core aspects of Objectivism the philosophy. So, by denying evolved natures it is denying in fact a core tenant of modern biology in our species. Which is in turn denying objective reality the core of Objectivism. We had an interesting conversation and in it I realized I was letting the opinions of other Objectivists determine whether I identified as one as opposed to letting whether I agreed with the philosophy be the determining factor. This I now see is a mistake as my views on rational/enlightened selfishness has not changed anymore has my views on government.

Where I disagree with many Objectivist groups is on the idea of Ayn Rand being the only worthwhile philosopher and Objectivism being mandatory for being a rational person, To me the primary thing is being in a relationship with reality if you will and not whether one is an Objectivist or even agrees with Objectivism. What matters is being rational and being in favor of limited government is hopefully where one ends up from that process However, I still do think that enlightened selfishness is a virtue. That altruism is cancerous and that self-destruction through sacrificing personal happiness is one of the core evils of the our age. This has not changed within my world view.

In our conversation Allen the person I was speaking with made an astute and true comment that stuck with me the rest of the evening. That what is often called Biological Altruism is not altruism at all. Doing things to keep alive your genes even if it seems sacrificial is not sacrifice for keeping your genes in the human species is selfish not sacrificial. It is not altruism that drives the things mistaken for sacrifice, but, a deep seated selfishness in the gene level. Thus Richard Dawkins book "The Selfish Gene." All so-called altruistic acts which are NOT actually sacrificial are simply egoistic benevolence and nothing more on an genetic level.

We help others not just because it is "right," but, because of the feedbacks our brains get and also because it means we are more likely to garner favor and breed. As well as keeping a reputation that is good in our social circles. It is a selfish act that comes across as altruistic when really it is an egoistic benevolence at work which is not altruism at all. The philosophy known as altruism is not present anywhere in nature and is in fact further from our evolved Animal natures as Homo-Sapiens than an enlightened selfishness which acknowledges justice with its corollary of benevolence toward others. In fact, the very evolutionary psychology that ARI refuses to acknowledge if anything validates rational self-interest as a model.

The stigma of Right-Wing and right leaning LGBT among Pride is bullshit!

A while ago I wrote about how I had issues with LGBT politics and also certain ways they acted in general. I wrote about the toxic nature of the broader Pride movement and their attitudes being horrible. I wrote about how there was a consistent world view that was quite bad in tone. I am not taking that back in the slightest with this article. You see the Pride movement is largely publicly made up of the type of people I mentioned I could not stand. So, my not being a fan is not based on the people whom are within that category collectively. However, instead is based on general trends I saw over the years.

That being said I wanted to throw some light on the often over looked group within the group. That being the right-wing and right leaning lgbt groups and individuals whom are often left out. While the loudest and shrillest wackados are given the loud speaker to spread the message of acceptance. There is quite a fair number of right leaning and non-Social Justice Warrior lgbt folks out there. Some of them have their own organizations and some of them just stand alone. However, you would never know it based on the stereotypical version of an lgbt person you get shown or run into. For example; I have both identified as the g and b in the past. However, I came out as being on the right while still using the g.

This is not what most people think of when they think of a gay person. Someone whom is as far right as you can get within Canadian politics. Yet, there I was a staunch Rightist and a registered member of the Libertarian Party of Canada. I was a minarchist in a strange land and yet there I was. Over the years my sexual self identification has changed. Yet, my politics has not and is still the same as it was back then. I am for liberty and freedom in person and economic matters. I do not use the term libertarian usually due to the connotations it has from some of the more fringe elements of the movement. However, libertarian, classical liberal or political Objectivist are the 3 closest words to my views on things.

However, I am not alone. Although I am even further right than most right leaning lgbt outside of the Libertarians themselves there are other right leaning individuals and organizations out there which blow the lid off the not wanting to talk about rightist lgbt peoples. This is why when criticizing LGBT I will tend to use the term Pride instead. Or sometimes Gay Fascists or Big Gay or other words. I want to distinguish between non-leftist lgbt and SW lgbt from just the standard individual lgbt person which can be either good or bad. I have issues with the ideas held in the head of a lot of lbgt people. I have issues with their philosophies and with certain things they do with their life. That does not mean their love life.

However, a reasonable lgbt person can be reasoned with just like anyone else. The question is how to find them when so many are unreasonable and toxic individuals. I am going to list some links in this article to right leaning organizations and non-SJW organizations of lgbt people to show some examples for my readers. The idea that lgbt is owned by the left needs to stop. LGBT and LGBT allies whom are right leaning, or even apolitical need to come out of the closet and be heard. The Social Justce and loud lefties need to stop putting lgbt and lgbt allies back into the closet because they do not agree with our politics.

LGBTory lists its core political beliefs as supporting limited government and personal and economic freedoms, opposing despotic governments and terrorist groups that persecute minorities including LGBT people, and supporting entrepreneurs and small business owners.

The (Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) is an organization that works within the Republican Party to advocate equal rights for LGBT people in the United States. LCR acts under the statement: "We are loyal Republicans. We believe in limited government, strong national defense, free markets, low taxes, personal responsibility, and individual liberty. Log Cabin Republicans represents an important part of the American family—taxpaying, hard working people who proudly believe in this nation's greatness. We also believe all Americans have the right to liberty and equality. We believe equality for LGBT Americans is in the finest tradition of the Republican Party. We educate our Party about why inclusion wins. Opposing gay and lesbian equality is inconsistent with the GOP's core principles of smaller government and personal freedom." 

The Outright Libertarians is a specific caucus or group within the US Libertarian Party that is made up of LGBT and allies. I do not agree with all of their views, but, they still exist.  

Here is the Wikipedia article containing links to information about various different right-wing lgbt groups (here listed as Conservative) in the broader world wide stage. 

Here is a good article containing comments on lgbt and more links to groups from a libertarian prospective.  

According to an FAQ from The Atlas Society (formerly The Objectivist Center):

While many conservatives believe that homosexuality should be outlawed and many liberals believe that homosexuals should be given special rights, Objectivism holds that as long as no force is involved, people have the right to do as they please in sexual matters, whether or not their behavior is considered by others to be or is in fact moral. And since individual rights are grounded in the nature of human beings as human beings, homosexuals do not deserve any more or less rights than heterosexuals.^[13]

Objectivist psychotherapist Michael J. Hurd supports gay marriage as falling under the rights of individuals to associate voluntarily. Unlike Rand, however, he does not view homosexuality as immoral, stating that "a gay marriage... though unconventional and highly controversial, can be a loving and highly satisfying union between two individuals."^[14][15]

Objectivist psychologists Ellen Kenner and Edwin A. Locke expressed opinions similar to those of Hurd.^[16][17]

Chartered affiliates of the Objectivist Party, a minor political party in the United States, have adopted platforms opposing government-sanctioned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, favoring legalization of same-sex marriage, and favoring elimination of the military's policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".^[18]

The idea that right wing equals Religious Theocracy or anti-gay is wrong. There is nothing in rightist as defined as the defense of properly limited government. Or in the case of the Anarcho-Capitalist far-far right of center a stateless private property based society. Which is or should be considered equated to anti-lgbt rhetoric nor policies. In fact, it was these rightist whom are responsible for the push towards same-sex legal equality. With the Libertarian movement from its inception in the 70's being for full equality under the law and even same sex unions being supported by the courts. The Canadian Libertarian Movement was started by a Gay High School English teacher whom was an avowed Objectivist. (I might do an article about that after.)

Yaron Answers: How Would A Government Gain Revenue Without Taxes?

Yaron Brook answers a question from Justin: "How would a government gain revenue without taxes?" www.laissezfaireblog.com

My Political Coordinates Test : 100.0% Right, 61.1% Liberal.

Right-liberalism (Libertarianism): Individuals in this quadrant seek to uphold liberty as the primary political good in all respects. They tend to see themselves as staunch supporters of both personal and economic freedom and are deeply skeptical of collective plans and goals, stressing instead the principle of voluntary association and the individual’s capacity to make his own judgments. They typically see less of a role for the state than individuals in the other three quadrants, believing instead in the spontaneous social order of the market.

The Horizontal Axis: Left-Right

In our test, the Left-Right Axis is used as a measure of the respondent's economic views, with the Left favoring state intervention and economic regulation while the Right favors economic freedom and laissez-faire. This means that the Left tends to support state efforts to restrain what they see as the unfair or immoral aspects of the free market while the Right tends to think that transactions between private parties should in principle be free from government interference.

However, a scale covering the respondent's stance on economic issues is not sufficient to explain the considerable variation that is seen within the two groups. Hence we introduce a second axis.

The Vertical Axis: Communitarian-Liberal

All liberals start from the belief that upholding individual liberties is more important than catering to the needs of society. Left Liberals tend to argue that the individual cannot make use of his or her formal liberties without some measure of education and material comfort. In their view, this necessitates redistribution from rich to poor. By contrast, Right Liberals tend to argue that taxing an individual against his will in order to provide welfare benefits to others constitutes an act of coercion and thus a breach of individual liberty. They may support charity and aid for the poor, but they prefer it to be voluntary.

All communitarians start from the belief that the well-being of the community should come before the idiosyncratic desires of specific individuals. Right Communitarians tend to take what might be called a paternal view of politics, favoring a hierarchical society and taking a stern view of threats where criminals belong in prison and foreign powers are deterred by a strong defense. For their part, while the ideologues among the Left tend to hold liberal values, research has tended to point to a sizable segment of voters who combine a left-leaning view of economics with support for the more traditional values of their community and a skeptical view of immigration (Mudde 2013).

Weaknesses and Limitations

Our test is designed to cover the mainstream of political opinions as found within contemporary Western democracies. This means that our test has trouble accommodating extreme or niche opinions like anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-capitalism, orthodox socialism, and fascism. While there are political coordinates tests in existence that purport to cover this whole range of opinions within the relatively simple quadrants set up by our scheme, the practical consequences (such as plotting centrist democratic leaders a stone's throw from Hitler and Kim Jong Un) seem to confuse more than inform.

Another issue is that, while both of the axes are equally important in theory, the realities of parliamentary politics tend to show that in practice alliances are rarely formed across the Left-Right divide. Although Liberals and Communitarians should in principle be able to form alliances against their counterparts, this almost never happens in actual politics. Hence, while the Left-Right axis has often been said to be antiquated, it nevertheless remains the single most important scale in American and European politics.

Globalism is Good and Promotes Western Values to the world!

I am seeing way too many people conflate globalism to some sort of elite conspiracy against the masses. Globalism is good and is in fact the core of living in a modern world that is integrated and not at constant strife. People whom trade will not kill each other if they know they are dependent on those other people to keep living their life in the way they wish to. The answer to making poverty actually slowly go away is globalism it is Global Capitalism embodied in unilateral free trade with any peaceful group./organization/individual. 

Currently the trend is to conflate worries about national security and the Islamic Threat with nationalism and anti-globalism. Somehow being Pro-National security means also being anti-immigrants that are peaceful and not criminal. It has been conflated with being anti-free trade. It has become conflated with being alt-right or with being Xenophobic. When wanting The West to deal with Islamic Terror in a proper way that is successful has nothing to do with being anti-globalism at all. 

I know that Islam is a threat and I want our Governments to deal with it. I am all for finding credible threats and dealing with them accordingly. Protecting individual rights and citizens is what a Government is intended to do and it is not intended to remove individual rights. By stopping Globalism you are stopping people and companies from engaging in peaceful global trading. You are not in fact stopping the people that are wanting to destroy Western Civilization. In fact you make it worse by stopping the exporting of Western Culture to other places in the world.

I think Europe and Canada are being pussies when it comes to the War Islam has declared on the Non-Islamic world. I think even the US is not really doing what needs to be done really. However, that does not mean one sacrifices economic freedom for security. One does not shut oneself from trading with people or with doing business because there is an Anti-Capitalist and Fascist group that wants you dead. There is much more that can be done about Islamic threats than we do, but, those things do not include infringing peaceful citizens rights.

For example; known radicals should be picked up as soon as they are on the radar and either housed in our own prisons and possibly deported elsewhere for housing if from a different Country. Our Countries need to get serious about the Mosques and dealing with them. Getting rid of the mosques which are linked to groups like The Muslim Brotherhood or other terrorist groups. This is not infringing rights as these people would be known threats and not peaceful citizens. Also, none of these possible prescriptions are anti-immigration nor anti-globalist. While I supported the idea of Trumps Travel suspension I do not support his idea of banning immigration from Mexico nor the Trump Wall. 

I am Pro-Peaceful and civil immigration for anyone not linked to the Islamic threat, a known criminal, has infectious diseases nor has linked to any other Terrorist group other than Islamic radicalism. I am ant-letting dangerous individuals into any plot of land, but, I am also all for civil individuals coming into and out of Countries. I am Pro-Globalism and I am not a Nationalist I am the opposite of Nationalistic. I am internationalist and globalist. I am for individual rights and their protection being spread world wide and governance based on that globally over all the Earth for all people. 

All people should have governance based on recognition of individuals and their rights to live free provided they harm no one else or their property. The Non-initiation of harm principle or force should be ideally stretched to all people everywhere and they should be governed accordingly. How this will be done can be debated and argued at length. However, globalism is a key component to that and a global maximizing of peace/prosperity/happiness pursuance for all people. We need globalism to export our values which are better and more civilized to the world and make Western Culture the mainstream view based on recognition of individual rights for all.