INTRODUCTION
The following article will examine several claims Alex Linder had made in favor of Libertarianism, the key points Linder mentions is Government, Freedom and Education. It is these topics I will examine in order to determine whether or not they hold any value at all. I will also examine a few key criticisms raised by Linder as well as some of his libertarian supporters, regarding the nature of National Socialism.
GOVERNMENT
The form of government proposed by Linder is rather simplistic, in so far as he contends that in a homogeneous European society, there would be no need for government, which he believes "Is incompetent of doing anything well"[1], that it is inefficient. While he certainly has a point that governments today aren't efficient and even hostile towards their own people. He misconstrues this as meaning that because government is dismal today. Any system that offers a government in the future would be equally dismal. To support this position further: he argues that, despite it acting incompetently, it still taxes business and the worker an excessive amount of money, which it then puts to poor use. To counter this, Linder formulated the following solution:
Instead of paying taxes to government and being subject to "economic tyranny" by means of legislation and regulation, it should rather cease to exist entirely, and business would run the process of organizing a society through privatization in its stead. [2] This poses numerous problems in and of itself.
For one: with no government in place, there is nothing to guarantee that business would not in fact monopolize public services and ask fees that are exceeding the means of the average citizen. We already see this in action today, where business actively seeks to exploit profitable markets (that is the non rural regions of the nation) and cut services off from rural regions entirely, actively demanding more money for less services provided to the nation as a whole. Two prime examples being the post office and public transport. Where previously the postal services delivered mail to the folk at no cost, they (the folk) now under an increasingly privatized postal system, have to pay based on the amount of miles they are away from non rural regions. And on the other hand, where previously, public transport was available in rural regions (train stops, bus stops) under increasingly privatized public transport systems, this no longer exists, the person now has to pay for a taxi fare based on mileage in order to reach a non rural region where he can take a bus further to his desired location. All this, simply because it was deemed unfeasible to provide a service in regions deemed to be a non profitable market. This apparent exclusivity in non-rural regions set the stage for price fares that exceed the normal fare because it gave the illusion that it provides something unique to the folk in the non-rural regions. There is also little to guarantee that it would pay its workers proper and a fair wage. Business had for a long time and continues to support the immigration of non-Europeans so they may benefit from paying lesser wages for more profit, the benefit of, which is not even passed to the consumer: that is to say that the wealth is not distributed, but pocketed among a select few. With nothing to ensure that there are any checks in place ensuring that it abides to the spirit of "the Old America" as he so frequently refers to, there is every possibility that they may in fact monopolize the system, and that they may in fact create a master-slave caste within the United States. This discrepancy in wealth distribution coupled with the increase of cheap labor gives rise to an increase in poverty, among the European citizens of the country. This rise in poverty is ironically enough the cause of the origin of Marxism, as it is directly linked to Marx' argument that an increasing divide would occur among those who control the means of production and those who don't. This increasing divide between those who control the means of production and those who don't, inevitably give rise to revolt and unrest within the nation, the desire to redistribute the wealth among those who had been afflicted by this discrepancy gives rise and fertile ground for a Bolshevist revolution.
Alex Linder then continues his crusade against government (in favor of business) further, by claiming that government has in the past cost the lives of millions of people during times of war and tyranny and that business on the other hand, simply offering products and services have not [3]. What Linder forgets is that private business if allowed to do so...exert tyranny of its own upon the folk. While the employee may appear to be free to sell his labor, in reality he isn't. He is compelled by necessity to survive and fend for himself and his family, so while he may maintain a standard salary at which he is willing to offer his skills, if turned down enough he will eventually be forced to accept employment at less than his worth. No man will maintain a standard payment for his skills if he is constantly turned down due to alleged costs. Now granted, business should not be compelled to pay an obscene amount of money purely because it is requested in return for the skills provided that is why salary regulations need to be in place to ensure that a fixed minimum amount are to be paid to specific skill sets. This would ensure that both the individual and the business don't lose. This standard salary however, need to ensure that the individual is capable of living above poverty.
Furthermore, that Linder attempts to make his position seem more plausible and peaceful, by harping on about the fact that lives had been lost and that by replacing or removing this system entirely there would be "peace"...is nothing more than a Utopian dream. Business is equally capable of engaging in the same thing. It is a practice in modern business to commit to intelligence operations and counter intelligence operations against the competition. Both sides tend to commit espionage against the other. Oddly enough Linder, contradicts himself by stating that he does in fact support a military wing of society for the purposes of defending its ideals against racial enemies. [4] This despite his apparent abhorrence of the "blood shedding of the past". Surely if the market needs to rule, these military wings drafted for the purpose of defending the folk against racial enemies, would need to be privatized armies. Considering this, it must be asked who precisely will these privatized armies defend? Will it be the folk or will it be their paymasters? These mercenaries aren't likely to bite the hand that feeds them, so when push comes to shove and the people grow tired of the discrepancy in wealth distribution, and begin to demand what they feel they are entitled to, these mercenaries would not hesitate to suppress them. Obviously this is a tyranny that exceeds anything else that had been cooked up thus far.
Even if we are to assume that this libertarian society has a military wing that functions exclusively for the defense of the folk then it begs the question: Where will the funds come from that ensure that this military wing not only exists, but that it continues to advance its weaponry? Will business fork out the bills as a collective? If so: how can he guarantee us that this would not be used to the detriment of society as a whole? While it may be plausible in the fictional realm...i.e. that business would act ethically and honorable. The staunch reality of the matter is that it's far more likely that they would abuse this power to ensure that they do not lose their privileged position in society. As have been mentioned earlier, the moment that the employees decide to demand what they are entitled to, they would use this power to suppress them. That is to say that the state would immediately fall from libertarianism into Oligarchic-Tyranny. On the other hand, should Linder decide that there must be a government. However, strictly on the sidelines and purely for the purposes of ensuring the maintenance of the military, would the people be taxed in order to fund this scheme? If so: is it not a contradiction of his previous assessment that his system would "free people from economic tyranny through legislation, taxes and regulation"?[5]
How does Linder propose to hold this military wing in check with no centralized government? This is especially problematic when he contends that his proposed society is beneficial to those who work and save, and not to the military and welfare inclined "dregs" of society. Calling the military dregs of society is not conducive to Linder obtaining his ideal state, I am sure he believes that he would be able to accomplish this without the approval and admiration of the military, but this isn't looking at the matter realistically: The military could if it deems his ideal state a threat to the constitution, stamp it out quite easily, and it would not hesitate to do so if he decides to adopt this path. There are ample examples in history that demonstrate how the military responds to the message that it is to be dissolved, they almost always respond by grabbing power themselves. Especially when they perceive the state as being weak and incapable of self-defense, which Linder's are. That aside let's assume that it is even possible that he manages to defy the odds...does Linder instead propose elsewhere that we should opt for a civilian armed forces? How precisely does he propose that those who desire centralized government would not in fact seize this opportunity to create a centralized government contrary to his ideal of a business utopia? The situation is so unpredictable that there can be no guarantee that these civilian armed forces (mercenaries) would not either answer to the needs of their paymasters as previously mentioned, or simply disband his utopia and opt for a more centralized and realistic government structure. Unless of course he opts for the option to import foreign mercenaries who have no connection to the nation and therefore have no issue with any of the injustices passing under the libertarian utopia.
This is a key problem in libertarian thought: whether it is mainstream libertarianism or Linder's variant thereof. There is little or no consideration of the practical implications of their policy (or lack there of) as is evidenced in the long list of questions posed and contradictions that arise from them through investigating potential answers or solutions. There is a reason attempts were made at legislation's to be passed in order to protect the worker and the reasons stretch far deeper than merely stifling the freedom of the elite to maximize their profit. A competitive market and economic freedom does not despite the false beliefs of the majority, imply that one has the freedom to monopolize or that one has the freedom to undermine small business under the auspices that "the fittest survive". The unchecked nature of Capitalist thought led directly to the increasing loss of property among the common property owner and the small business man.
It is not because it requires genius to create business that the small business owner struggles to maintain his position in the market. It is because there is little to prevent big business from weeding him out. Several anti-competitive tactics are often employed to weed out the small business man, for instance: business drops the prices running at a loss for a short period forcing their competitors to apply the same methods in order to attract consumers to their products, which ultimately leads to bankruptcy. This turns the small business owner from an independent contributor to the market into a serf enthralled to big business. To use another example: Walmart and Compass demand that suppliers drop their prices to break even (or less) otherwise they will seek supply from other suppliers.
The logical questions that arise at this point would be: "how did unchecked capitalism lead to the increasing loss of property owned by the common man, as well as to the loss of property owned by the small business man?" and "how precisely does this make him enthralled to large business?"
Large business has a tendency to consume property and small businesses in the interest of growing its own market. Whether this be by deliberately providing a product in mass scale and at cheaper and worse quality than that of the small business owner, or simply buying them out, the end remains the same... It ultimately leads to an increasing loss of small property holders and an increasing grip on property by larger corporations. That is to say that the buying and selling power is largely in the hands of large corporations, even if they do sell this property to small and medium enterprises (if it is deemed to not be profitable) it is sold at prices that do not meet the value of the property. The reason this is done is to ensure that a profit is made from bought property rather than a loss. I am sure that most of you think at this juncture that if land is legally purchased, then it is legitimate and does indeed assist the small property owner as well as the economy financially. But this is not the case at all. You have probably played the popular board game monopoly and seen the results if one player gains control of two thirds or all of the property on the board: it makes it increasingly difficult for the other players to survive in the climate that is the game. Now granted you might smirk at this, and point out that life is not a board game and while this may be true, unchecked capitalism has precisely this same outcome. In so far as it (just as the board game) gradually stifles the economic freedom of the small to medium property and business owner and makes it increasingly difficult for small to medium enterprises and property owners to function, they will eventually (just as the player in the game) be forced to sell at a loss and file for bankruptcy.
On the other hand: land used for agriculture, which is the essential heart of any nation, is under constant pressure from developers seeking to buy the land and use it to develop urban sprawls. The houses may be sold, but the lease of the land still remains in the hands of the developer. This developer can at his own discretion (should the contract not stipulate otherwise) raise the rent of these houses as he sees fit, increasing the financial grip on the average citizen. Another point to consider is the fact that agricultural land purchased is never bought at the actual value of the farming land, simply because it is not calculated on its value to the nation, or its value to the farmer, or to the national community, but on its market value in terms of acres, which is a mechanistic and arbitrary method of evaluating the value of productive farming land. Farming land is not simply acres of sand: it is acres of productive land that produces the substance which gives the nation its independence from others and contributes to a healthy, vibrant national population.
It is here where we see the larger difference between the affects caused in reality and those caused in a board game. While these may affect the individual player in the game of monopoly, these practices affects each and every member of the folk in reality.
This is because the loss of valuable agricultural land, creates dependency on foreign food imports and it uproots the farmer from his natural element forcing him to adapt to a mechanized occupation that is not suited to his skill set. Now it may be argued that he should adapt and apply new skills in order to become more competitive. But all this does, is merely state that he should accept his lot and work toward a new lifestyle, thus taking the human factor out of it i.e. moral consideration of the lot of others is not taken into account, but is merely secondary to profit and the increase there of: anyone could then technically be systematically weeded out of their professions and simply be told to apply new skills so they can sustain a living. This is not just and it certainly is not in line with what we envision for our folk. We cannot place them second to profit nor can we condone disconnecting our folk from the land. Of course to this it could be responded that it was the farmers choice to sell his land. On this, I must disagree: it is rarely the case that a farmer sells his land out of choice, but more often than not because he is compelled to. Today, a local farmer producing local produce has to take into consideration factors outside his immediate market. That is to say: that any produce he makes locally, the same are imported by some large enterprise for cheaper and sold for cheaper on the market, making it increasingly difficult for the local farmer to sell his goods. The local farmer in turn has to cut prices and utilize less and less of his land as the cost of production exceeds that which he makes from the consumer, until ultimately he is not only incapable of sustaining himself, but incapable of sustaining the land, thereby forcing him to sell. This is why there is a need for fixed prices on produce, to give local farmers the ability to sell their produce and more so, to be assured as a constant what it is they can expect to get in return. On the other hand, the loss of small to medium sized businesses increases economic dependency on foreign business investments among our folk. Both of these lead to the same end, more and more people are forced to become dependents, and rest their fate entirely on the good fortunes of their employer. When you have economic independence and economic freedom (I discuss the nature of true economic freedom later in this section), skilled workers are more valuable and paid accordingly, checks are in place to ensure that they are rewarded for it. However, in a monopolized "capitalist/libertarian" society, there would be no demand for skilled workers because all work goes directly through a select few property owners. Meaning that they control the demand not vice versa. The value of such workers would diminish and they'd be paid to the extent of cheap labor and nothing more.
Another point to consider is: the loss of small and medium business could also lead to the demise of quality control as I have briefly mentioned earlier. I shall now explain what it is I mean by this:
Whether it is believed or not, it is highly probable that once there is little competition that maintains a quality standard, business would see no reason to ensure that they produce products that are top quality. As far as they'd be concerned, you should simply accept what is on offer for without them there to provide the product you wouldn't have it to begin with. We already see indications of this, several of our products are being made abroad at cheaper rates and with far less emphasis on "quality".
With these thoughts in mind, people should heed warning not to look at business practices from a direct perspective while neglecting entirely that there are various (and often used) indirect practices to achieve the desired effect for large corporations. The methods by which farmers are bought off their land are by no means ethical to say the least, they either have their produce sanctioned, or they are forced to buy their material from exclusive providers. This is also a method practiced to stifle the small business owner. If you are dependent on one supplier, you are dependent on his prices. There is no freedom to pick and choose a supplier as it fits your needs. It is not "liberating from economic tyranny" as Linder fancies his scheme to be, but quite the opposite that occurs...enslavement to the point where the farmer has little choice, but to leave behind the life that is so embedded in his blood.
With that said it is clear that economic freedom is not achieved when rested in the hands of the select few, or those capable of weeding out the small property holder. Just as freedom as a concept is not attained by catering for the minority of the population, what concerns freedom is how it is beneficial to the community as a whole. The benefit to society is determined by the results achieved. People reject policy not because it "limits freedom" but because it is damaging or detrimental, if the results are pleasing to the State and the folk, then the people will seek no reason to disband it.
Clearly an economic policy that caters for a select few individuals above the well-being of the folk is not a feasible alternative to the centralized government of today, much less to speak of one that is actually of benefit to the folk. One simply cannot substitute a sledgehammer with a bulldozer and call it a solution as Linder has done. Government is not there to ensure the well-being of the select few, but rather the well-being of the folk and the state as a whole, and while libertarians and Linder may have a point that today it is neglecting this task, it is inconceivable to suggest that the only solution is one, which is by far the worst imaginable...that is to say that the folk should be left to the devices of a system which in the past and the present showed its tendency to exploit. If business had been ethical and if it had been the solution to societies problems, then there would not have been a need for legislation and economic theory to prevent the exploitative tendencies of big business.
Linder cannot state that certain regulations would remain to ensure they (the worker) aren't bitten out by business in order to remedy these inconsistencies and if he does decide to argue in favor of it. How does he plan to institute a completely neutral committee to oversee that it complies to these regulations? And would this not then contradict his assertion that he would "free the business from economic tyranny"? It is always possible to accommodate certain regulations, but the more and more he does this, the less it becomes libertarianism, and the more it leans toward a centralized form of governing. It is folly to state that because the current establishment misuses funds appropriated through taxation, it's necessary to entirely do away with the system and entrust it to business which poses several severe problems if maintained unregulated, as is evidenced throughout this section.
We're going to need far more than mere "aesthetic dreams" to convince us that leaving our fate entirely up to business is the right choice for our folk and since reason contradicts this assertion, it would take a miracle of immense proportions to alter the fact that it simply will not work without it eventually ending in tears.
FREEDOM
The second issue on Linder's list is the matter of freedom. It is Linder's contention that less control by government ultimately means more freedom and that it is the key to the development of all the creative spirit within the folk [6]. Now obviously this only shows one thing:
Linder hasn't the faintest clue what precisely freedom means. He's under some false perception that freedom can only be attained when it is uninhibited as much as possible. While it may be true when you look at it from such a simplistic standpoint, it is by it's very nature anarchic as well. This is why we look at freedom in terms of how it relates to man and freedom as it relates to the community. These two concepts are interlocked and inseparable. That is to say that:
Freedom as it relates to man on an individual level needs to conform and be in harmony with freedom as it relates to the community. Obviously, if we allow man the freedom to inflict harm onto another, we equally disallow the victim the freedom to not be harmed, in this regard we restrict the freedom of one who desires the freedom to harm another for the good of the community (who desires co-existence in as peaceful a way as possible). It is not in uninhibited individual freedom that freedom as a whole is achieved, but by how it relates to the well-being of the community. This does not, however, mean that we prevent the individual's right of personal freedom. We fully acknowledge the right to personal freedom, provided that these do not in any way harm the community or the individual. That is to say: personal "freedoms" that are detrimental to the individual as well as to the folk, must be sacrificed for the good of the community and for the individual as well. Of course it could be argued that: what a person does in the privacy of his home is entirely his business and that we cannot possibly say that he must, be held accountable for actions committed in the privacy of his home. But here we touch upon an issue that depends entirely on the perception of the individual himself (as mentioned earlier) and what he thinks the freedoms he is entitled to are. While it may be true in most cases that we cannot intervene in the privacy of the individual's home. There are exceptions to this rule: It cannot be argued that the abuse of drugs is alright as long as it is done within the privacy of the individual's home. He may consider this a freedom he is entitled to have, but this puts at risk the well-being of every member of the folk that comes into contact with him throughout the duration of his intoxication. This sort of argument would also assume that an individual who acts irresponsibly has the responsibility to refrain from putting others at risk. Which simply isn't the case, if it is not directly endangering others lives, it is the selling of these substances to the community and the active recruiting of community members that's undertaken at every possible opportunity. Showing that: more often than not, these self damaging "personal freedoms" have community wide consequences. There are far more diabolical instances of perceived personal freedom that have harmed others and have ultimately left a community in shock. However, we need not delve into these as I trust that we've come to understand that there are with regard to the privacy of an individual's home, exceptions to the rule. And as a result of these exceptions demonstrable instances where, for the sake of the greater good certain personal freedoms must ultimately be sacrificed and actively worked against. And to do this, we make use of regulations called laws, which act as the checks (much like a maze) that guide man to his spiritual, moral and intellectual growth.
Consider the following thought experiment:
When science wishes to determine the faculties of an organism, it places them in a regulated environment so that they may extract the potential of the organism to its fullest extent, in any matter of problem solving and it frequently translates into success. The reason is because an organism that is placed into a regulated environment is able to use its cognitive abilities without distraction. However, if there are no such regulated environments in place, then these collective (and productive) energies would be dispersed with little guidance to ensure that they reach their maturity. Or to put it slightly different: castes will form within society, and each one would seek to impose its will on the other.
Now this is not to say that a human being is not a complicated organism, but in a society where several depend on one another it is equally necessary to ensure that distractions of an immoral nature do not occur. The checks imposed in order to secure freedom for all law abiding members of the folk are fundamentally no different to the regulated environments produced to ensure that distractions do not occur and that the maximum potential is extracted from the organism. Whereas without these checks in place it would collapse into a chaotic environment where the general well-being of the folk are in danger. Humans are for the most part in constant pursuit of happiness, and as a result of this pursuit of happiness, they are ill-inclined to refrain from immorality unless there are attached to these actions consequences as there is with any choices that are made. It had been shown countless times in society that people are easily susceptible to suggestion. It takes only a few to tempt with immorality for it to catch fire and stifle the moral fiber of the folk.
With this said:
If we consider the matter discussed previously it is obvious that when we review Linder's "White-Man-ISM" versus National Socialism, that National Socialism does indeed do far more to ensure that proper freedom is rewarded to the community. It is true that he could point to certain concepts of National Socialism that inhibit the "freedom of man," but only so far as he perceives these freedoms. That is to say that: what he considers free, others equally consider tyranny...If these checks ensure the advancement of the community as a whole, then freedom has indeed been ensured.
EDUCATION
Similarly to government, Linder argues that because the education system today is astronomically worse than home education, home education (based on a strictly intellectual curriculum) should be the absolute practice in his libertarian society.[7][8] There are several issues with this:
Linder assumes that every parent that elects to educate their child at home takes the toughest intellectual course possible for their child, which is simply not the case. More often than not they opt for the same curriculum that he considers to be "entirely geared to attitude adjustment" (see note 8). On the other hand, he also assumes that parents not themselves educated in a strictly intellectual curriculum, would be able to educate their children in such a rigorous education system. Even worse that they would enable the children to understand the courses with relative ease. Which upon close reflection is patently absurd: merely reading a wide array of books does not qualify a parent in the teaching of rigorous intellectual material. It requires in-depth knowledge of the material provided. A child needs to be guided and explained the content of his school curriculum, something an untrained parent cannot do in a complex school curriculum.
Linder further assumes that every parent would willingly do so; this is also not the case: Home education today is done by parents who elect to accept that responsibility, it is not mandatory. In a "loosely free" libertarian society, there can be no checks in place to ensure that all parents adhere to this responsibility. That is to say that: they cannot be forced to ensure proper education for the youth of the society. Of course, Linder could (as is his custom to do) sway between the two options (his and the one provided here) and enact such a law to ensure proper education. This however, is a particularly tricky matter, as it is in essence in the privacy of the citizen's home and we could equally then implement various other laws on the grounds that what the citizen does in the privacy of his home is detrimental to society as a whole. Including the matter of homosexuality, which Linder deems "alright as long as it is in the closet".[9] Clearly the one contradicts the other. Linder cannot be in favor of imposed laws like these regarding home education, whilst considering the other as "beyond the bounds of the law" if it is maintained in the privacy of the house. Especially when he considers homosexuality to be damaging to the community.
That's precisely the problem law makers had in the early 19th century and this is precisely why the public school system was created. It alleviated the parents from this responsibility and ensured maximum privacy at home without violation. I am sure some would consider the possibility that because education in general is mandatory that it is fundamentally no different to implementing these laws that violate the privacy of home decisions and choices, but this is not the case. In providing optional public schooling a choice is provided for the parent, to either elect to home school their children; or to grant the responsibility to the State; or on the other hand private institutions to do so. In Linder's libertarianism there is no choice regarding the matter, which makes it less a matter of 'freedom' than the solution provided by the state and private institutions.
Of course we could repeat the fact that this system is abused today, and that the education curriculum is extremely dumbed down. But when one discusses a theoretical future state (as Linder does) he must take into account the fact that a rigorous, and well-balanced education system within an Aryan society would be better able to ensure that children are properly educated. As it would serve as a beacon in the community guiding our youth back to their natural roles. This is something, Linder's libertarian ideal cannot guarantee. His strict home school policy will leave our youth susceptible to the very ideals that have led us down this path to begin with. Linder wrongly assumes that once he achieves success, every single individual in his society would convert to a full-blown racial libertarian. Whilst at the same time acknowledging that this isn't feasible at all...i.e. He acknowledged that it is necessary at first to deal away with non-whites and such, under the auspices of a racial dictatorship. [10] but thinks this will only be necessary until these threats are removed. Once they are removed, society will be blissful and we could return to a state of statelessness. Which begs the question: If Linder considers the only solution to the racial question an authoritarian interim government, why does he neglect the most important aspect of the folk, its youth? It is absurd to think that one merely has to rectify the racial demographic and society would magically balance itself to a state of serenity.
The problems that we face aren't merely rectified in one generation or in a few years, it is a condition that requires constant monitoring which can only be attained by means of proper governmental ground work. The concept of a thousand year Reich was not because National Socialism envisioned itself as a "political messiah" as some have come to think, it is because it recognized that ideas have a lasting effect whether they are demonstrable within society or not. It is necessary to have a system in place that lasts long enough to reintroduce racial principles into our folk; so it once more becomes a natural instinct.
HOW LINDER'S BAND OF LIBERTARIANS ARGUE AGAINST NATIONAL SOCIALISM
Recently, in order to further boast his libertarian ideals, Linder and his band of libertarians decided to in effect lash out against National Socialism and its perceived "tyrannical laws" which had been passed. In this section, we will deal with several of these issues brought up during his discussion about the libertarian ideal. The topics will be dealt with in a Statement & Answer format, so as to maintain consistency. For the purposes of consistency, I've made these statements according to a general outline. The verbatim statements can be found in the source.
"Libertarianism offers freedom of association"[11]
To this, we answer: In National Socialism today as well as in Germany, people do and did have the freedom to associate with whom they please. You may consider this statement preposterous and point to the fact that they were not allowed to associate with non-Whites, Jews, communists and so forth...but I could equally point out that your position is patently absurd on the basis that you maintain fully that your society will only function once these elements are not in it. I could equally then, turn the question on you and ask why you prevent the freedom of association between European and black, European and Jew and communist and libertarian?
"What if I don't want to associate with a National Socialist, would they be alright with it?"[See note 11]
To this we answer: There were several party members in National Socialist Germany who associated freely with non-party members. People who elected to not join the party; or any of its branches were not hindered in any of their day to day activities. There was no discrimination against people on the basis that they either did not "vote" or are not members of the National Socialist party. The same would apply today, National Socialism adheres to a strict folkish concept: we love our folk and our single drive is to secure its survival and ensure that it continues its advancement to its highest potential. Obviously when we consider this fact, there is little to suggest that we would go so far as to discriminate against law abiding members of our folk. Of course, you could always argue that there have been instances where members of the folk in National Socialist Germany were prosecuted for practicing communist ideals, but this would be hypocritical to mention considering that it is doubtful that you would tolerate individuals who practice egalitarianism in your exclusive libertarian "society".
"In National Socialism, the controlled media will not report your point of view"[12]
To this we answer: It is in the interest of any institution whether it be Government or in your case a lack there of, to perpetuate their ideals. It is essential to the existence of ideologies to do so. Whether you propagandize 80% of material that are libertarian and allow 20% of the arguments that are easily swatted for the purposes of making your own ideal appear that much more solid, makes your media no less controlled than those of any other State.
We already observe this tendency on your part, eagerly threatening to silence those who oppose your visions, and sometimes out right silence them entirely should they provide a bit too much opposition and too many arguments that you are unable to answer directly yourself.
"National Socialism is out dated and won't work in America"[13]
To this we answer: National Socialism is an organism in and of itself, it continuously adapts and evolves as time flows by, which makes it I dare say the most modern World view that exists today. And on the other hand because it is adaptable and because it does evolve, it is equally workable in the United States. It is foolish to believe that we could simply copy German National Socialism which evolved from German culture, German thought and German historical background and paste it into Denmark and expect it to work. It would logically and by its very nature adapt in accordance with their culture, thought and background, just as it would do the same in the United States.
SUMMARY
Throughout this essay, I've explored several key points in Linder's libertarian ideals, and it is through this exploration that I conclude the following reasons as to why it is a flawed utopic pipe dream: On his ideas to replace government with private business we concluded that one cannot expect business to not abuse the power granted to them over the citizen body. On his ideas for an education system we concluded that it cannot be expected that an education system based on pure homeschooling would work in a reasonable sense because it lacks the elements that provide a lasting framework for the folk. Also, that not everyone has the free time at their disposal to handle such a rigorous education system as Linder has in mind, neither do they have the correct training in understanding these materials. Lastly, on the concepts of Linder's "freedom" we concluded that it is folly to expect freedom to be "loosely defined" based on "less control" without it inevitably leading to an increasingly immoral society.
It appears as though libertarianism is a political concept that needs to be taken on good faith and warm sentimental feelings rather than calculated and well thought out solutions. Clearly this is not a feasible solution to the problems we face today, nor is this the kind of system in which we should trust the future of our folk.
Notes:
[1] Linder, Alex. “Libertarianism Is Poison”. Vanguard News Network. 21st September 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1052484&postcount=60
[2] Linder, Alex. “Libertarianism Is Poison”. Vanguard News Network. 21st September 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1052494&postcount=61
[3] Linder, Alex. “Libertarianism Is Poison”. Vanguard News Network. 20th September 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1052221&postcount=32
[4] Linder, Alex. “Libertarianism Is Poison”. Vanguard News Network. 21st September 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1052484&postcount=60
[5] Linder, Alex. “Libertarianism Is Poison”. Vanguard News Network. 21st September 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1052494&postcount=61
[6] Linder, Alex. “Libertarianism Is Poison”. Vanguard News Network. 22nd September 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1052983&postcount=139
[7] Linder, Alex. “Libertarianism Is Poison”. Vanguard News Network. 22nd September 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1053088&postcount=153
[8] Linder, Alex. “Libertarianism Is Poison”. Vanguard News Network. 23rd September 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1053088&postcount=163
[9] Linder, Alex. “The Continental Divide Poll: Where WN Stand on Government”. Vanguard News Network. 2nd October 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1056672&postcount=71
[10] Linder, Alex. "The Continental Divide Poll: Where WN Stand on Government". Vanguard News Network. 1st October 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1056266&postcount=1
[11] SteveB. "The Continental Divide Poll: Where WN Stand on Government". Vanguard News Network. 1st October 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1056295&postcount=8
[12] Linder, Alex. "The Libertarianism Is Poison". Vanguard News Network. 21st September 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1052404&postcount=47
[13] Bandanza, Robert. "The Continental Divide Poll: Where WN Stand on Government". Vanguard News Network. 1st October 2009. 13th November 2009. http://www.vnnforum.com/showpost.php?p=1056305&postcount=10
No comments:
Post a Comment