For many people, being a libertarian was the first stage of their right-wing journey. Fed up with social justice warriors, anti-white college campuses and mass migration, many people decided to ‘unplug’ from the matrix and thus become a more independent person from society or the state. To achieve this, they embraced the private sector and property rights; and developed the view that the public sector should either be dramatically reduced to the point it was insignificant or disposed of entirely.
For many in the Dissident Right, this was just a phase and was essentially a stepping stone to race realism and full-blown nationalism. Some people stay libertarians for the rest of their lives, just because their comfortable existence and willingness to ignore reality allows them to do so. For those of us who notice things though, libertarianism is merely unworkable and does not offer a coherent, safe or meaningful future.
The ‘tax is theft’ motto becomes tiresome after a while and is quite frankly too narrow-minded. Governments are necessary, they are inevitable, and they are needed in society. There has to be an authority, and there has to be a way of paying for not only the government, the military, the coast guard and everything else we rely on but also for welfare to some degree.
Despite libertarians asserting that abolishing the welfare state would incentivize people to work, this argument comes crashing down when you realize that the largest share of welfare payments in Britain, for example, are Pensions – a benefit which goes to people who obviously cannot work. The second largest group of welfare payments in Britain go to working families. Because of the rising cost of living, which includes rent, food and fuel costs, many people in work are forced to rely on benefits like tax credits just to keep their heads above the water every month.
It is true that people should only be given welfare payments if they actually need them, and that those who do not need them should be encouraged to work. However, that does not mean that the welfare state should be abolished altogether. A realistic middle option is required, and I suspect it has always been needed to some degree.
The other core principle of libertarians – the free market – is also riddled with problems. Firstly, a market which is not regulated will always result in corporatism, where the most successful companies buy their competitors and dominate a market, and thus gain overwhelming power in that market. We have seen this in Silicon Valley with Google, Facebook and Apple. We have also seen this in the banking sector with the merger of RBS and ABN Amro, and the merger of Lloyds bank with HBOS. These juggernauts of finance became so big they couldn’t sustain themselves and ended up helping to bring down the West’s banking system in the 2008 crash. Competition commissions and regulators are already struggling to deal with the markets I have mentioned above, and if you take those regulators away or reduce their powers as libertarians want, even more deadly problems would emerge.
Indeed, if you extend the principle of the free market right across the globe, you soon find your own manufacturing being outsourced to cheaper bases in the Far East, and as a result, your own working class loses their jobs. You also see middle-class workers from India and China taking jobs that the local university graduates are qualified for, which means your own middle class remains unemployed too.
The other example of libertarianism failing to grasp reality is on the issue of self-responsibility. Turning Point UK and other organizations like Cato and Reason assert this premise over and over again. It is a nice thought to think that everybody could have their own privately owned plot of land and that if you just left them alone, all would be well with the world. But this is just a fantasy, and anybody with life experience knows that laws, regulation, social pressure and the threat of punishment keep a lot of people in line. Many individuals in society just do not have the agency to govern their own behavior.
A responsible society needs to encourage entrepreneurship, but it also needs to regulate the businesses and corporations which those same entrepreneurs will inevitably create. And just because the hardcore socialist policies of Venezuela have failed, that doesn’t mean basic socialist policies like a safety net have to be scrapped in the West. It doesn’t have to be the free market vs. total socialism; there are other more reasonable and realistic options available. Indeed, most countries in the world have a balance between the private and public sector, and those countries which have swayed too far one way or the other in the past have usually ended up in turmoil.
It is frustrating that, after all that has passed since 2015, many people have not moved forward in their outlook, and that the faults of libertarianism and the ‘muh liberty’ crowd still need to be addressed. Civil liberties are indeed important, however, so is being realistic and pragmatic; and the latter two must always be held as more important. From a nationalistic perspective, a welfare state which helps your own people, combined with a private sector which adheres to your nation’s interests, is the ideal solution.