
Chomsky is typical of a leftist, wherein his views are mired
in so much revisionism that it’s hard to decide whether he can distinguish
between true and false any longer, or whether he’s foolish enough to actually
believe his views from the outset. A detailed website highlights this well,
and a gem of an example of Chomsky propaganda is suggesting communist murder in
the 20th century is no worse than anything caused by so-called
capitalist countries. This is subjective nonsense that leftists spout a lot,
since no regimes in history have slaughtered more efficiently or brutally than
communists, over 100 million being the death count often provided. It’s
important to note that so many people disappeared in communist countries that
all one can really do is approximate on death tolls. Vanishing without a trace
was common in the likes of the Soviet Union.
So what of the roots of the term libertarianism? Leftists
would have us believe that it started as a collectivist ideal, and Chomsky says
that the USA has a radically different notion of the term compared to the rest
of the world. When I first heard leftists make these claims I questioned my own
definition. Upon further examination I realised this is as false as any other
leftist lies people have been fed. It’s false for the precise reason that
liberalism was never originally defined as a collectivist philosophy. To
understand why the distinction between collectivism and individualism is the
best place to start.
An individualist believes people have unalienable rights,
and that all rights are derived from the perspective of the individual above
all, or even in totality. A collectivist believes the opposite, but a bit of flexibility
is required to realise that some people sit in the middle. Therefore one would
assume that the earliest classical liberals, which is where the modern concept
of “liberty” first began, would tell us a lot about the roots of
libertarianism. This is indeed the case.
In political philosophy one of the first topics students
learn about is the social contract, with three philosophers being the basis.
Hobbes is the first, and was not a classical liberal. He laid down his
authoritarian view of the social contract in the 16th century, where
the citizen was obligated to surrender freedom to live in the jurisdiction of
the state. The argument was justified by postulating that people would be worse
off without the state, and therefore should be grateful for their lot in life,
even if this means sacrificing elements of their freedom.
Then came John Locke in the 17th century. He is
considered by many to be the father of classical liberalism and libertarianism,
which is very telling when we learn about his views. He was the world’s first
individualist, believing that people have natural rights that are unalienable.
His views became the foundation for enlightenment ideals, and none had a
greater influence on the US declaration of independence than he.
Finally we have Jean-Jacque Rousseau. Rousseau also believed
in unalienable rights, but he didn’t believe they began with the individual,
rather the collective. Therefore the individual was subservient to the will of
the collective. Hence a good title for Rousseau would be the father of modern
collectivism.
Gradually liberalism was associated not with the philosophy
of individual sovereignty, John Locke the earliest thinker to set this out, but
a Rousseauian authoritarian view of what “liberty” was supposed to represent.
By the time we reach the 19th century individualism is being
systematically brushed aside by a new ideology – socialism. Philosophers like
John Stuart Mill were associated with “liberalism”, but in truth the corrupting
influence of utilitarianism was a strong aspect of his philosophy, not to
mention his gradual approval of socialism.
Thanks to the corrupting influence of collectivism,
particularly socialism and utilitarianism, the definition of liberalism began
to mean something other than individualism. Thus the term libertarianism would
eventually become the alternative for individualists. Now it seems that
leftists have their eyes on this label too, calling themselves
left-libertarians, which can mean anything from anarcho-syndicalist to anarcho-communist,
or any number of collectivist stances.
The terms ‘leftist’ and even ‘rightist’ can further empower
the leftist to mislead, though they have their uses as distinctions if you can
understand what they really represent. These terms began during the French revolution, where extremists sat on the left of the national assembly,
and the moderates on the right. Those on the left wanted an end to the
monarchy, while those on the right wanted a limited monarchy to remain. As we
know the ‘leftists’ won, and subsequently the guillotine beheaded thousands. A
leftist has thereafter been linked to extremists that want to eradicate the
status quo at virtually any cost, and is historically the catalyst of the
bloody revolutions that overwhelmingly dominated the 20th century.
Those on the right are considered moderates, or
‘conservatives’, and preservers of the status quo. This description of the left
and right fits well today in a political landscape where the left perpetually
strives for endless, and often irrational change, whereas the conservative
right wishes to maintain social and economic order. I don’t personally feel I
fit into either of these distinctions. Above all I am an individualist who
upholds categorical morals of unalienable natural rights and the non-aggression
principle. I however oppose changes that provide power to the collective,
further eroding individual liberty.
As we can see neither libertarian nor liberal were ever
originally defined as collectivist. The father of liberal and libertarian
thought was the most influential individualist of all, John Locke. His views
date all the way back to the 17th century, long before socialist or
utilitarian philosophy took hold. Leftists are simply reverting to their
typical tactics of revising the truth with lies, and withholding facts to make
people think otherwise.
I laugh so hard when I see known feminist friends of mine post about being a libertarian and in the next breath claim freedoms should be suppressed for the greater good. In particular if you are a white male because of crimes you never committed. I also giggle when female friends will say it is worth the risk of having men arrested by the simple accusation of a frightened woman. The risk to them is more than tolerable because they are not men!
ReplyDeleteForsaken Eagle
I consider myself a left wing libertarian, but I will let you straighten me if needed. I support gay marriage and legalization of marijuana, but I also want to see a universal, single-payer health care system in the United States.
ReplyDeleteLeft-wing libertarian is an oxymoron. You can't be a libertarian and advocate institutionalized theft.
Deletehere let me help you out:
ReplyDeletehttp://praxeology.net/all-left.htm
libertarian communism and chomsky is irrelevant to what you're trying to get at with this article. it's obvious that you did little to no research on what left-libertarianism is
You just posted me a link to a load of rehashed leftist junk appearing to offer various philosophies, but all relating to identity politics and collective ownership. It is totally irrelevant to the points made in this post, which addresses the roots of individualist libertarianism, and dates back much further than any left-wing version. Left-libertarianism is a relatively new concept in comparison.
DeleteNow unless you can learn how to debate honestly and logically, as well as stay on point with the relevant post or video in question, subsequent comments will not be permitted.
Thank you so much for doing what you do, E. I wish I knew your actual name so that I could refer to you in a more personal manner. My apologies, but I don't have a lot to contribute other than to inform you that I'm greatly supportive of yourself and your output. We need thousands more people like you if we are ever to put an end to the utter abhorrence that is collectivism. Please continue with your admirable work, and if you ever have a book published, know that I will be the first person to place their order.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your kind and supportive words. I do like to write, and would like to self-publish some ebooks, one fiction and one non-fiction in the guise of my online material. I have no plans to do this in the near future, but it certainly helps to hear that there are people out there that would like to see this come to pass.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWe are not Borg, Resistance is vital.
ReplyDelete