Many Libertarians Are Maturing into a "Group Defense" Mindset / by John Lilley

By John Mark

A libertarian commented, "You don't need to punish liars, parents just need to educate their children better. How are you going to punish liars, have the government enforce this? Bad idea. Consolidation of power breeds parasitism."

My response:

"You don't need to punish murderers or thieves, parents just need to educate their children better. How are you going to punish murderers and thieves, have the government enforce this? Bad idea. Consolidation of power breeds parasitism." See what I did there?

A. We're not talking about deciding what's truth or not on a whim. We're talking about very specific empirical falsehood tests. It won't be 100% perfect just like we're not 100% perfect about punishing thieves and murderers, but it will be light years better than not having laws that allow for the punishing of public lying, just as it's light years better to have laws against murder and stealing than not to have them.

B. We're talking about punishing lying to the public (by public figures), not regular people in everyday speech.

C. Education doesn't work sufficiently because there is a huge market for lies. You cannot educate most of the world not to lie because most people in the world have an IQ below 90 and thus are not able to discern truth even if they try, plus they don't *want* to speak the truth because it limits them from operating in their optimum short-term strategy (parasitism). The truth only benefits the strong in the short-term (but benefits everyone in the long-term). Watch my videos "Why the Left Never Learns Pt 1 & 2".

D. Libertarians will never have any power, because the very definition of power is the ability to punish what you don't want (in our case, parasitism and lying) using group force, and libertarians *take the government's role in this for granted* as if it just magically "is", while claiming "government is (always) bad". The "good" function of government is punishing parasitism. We've done it so well for so long in the West (while still being imperfect) that everybody takes it for granted. Government (organized use of force) turns "bad" when it engages in parasitism rather than suppressing it. Libertarians claim that "government is bad", by which they mean "government or more goverment is *always* bad". This misses the fact that 1) government (organized force) will always exist because there will always be demand for leadership and organized force (a group cannot survive without it), 2) if you don't have government (organized force to stop crime, parasitism, & to protect your people & your stuff from invasion), you have no power. Anyone who claims "the government can't do any good" is lying (cherry-picking) and anyone who advocates for "no government" is advocating for something that will never occur.

The solution is "better government", not "no government", for the simple reason that "no government" is impossible.

Those who advocate for "smaller government" usually mean "less parasitism". Which is great. But sometimes advocates for "smaller government" make the mistake of assuming that "less/smaller" government is *always* the answer and "more government" is *always* bad.

Classic example: military. (You can make the military more efficient or even shrink it but if you make it too small you put your group and its property at risk of invasion/theft/parasitism.)

Another example: Rule of law & judges. In third-world countries, judges are often paid very poorly. They have "smaller government" as the government does not spend much money on paying judges. But this opens the door wide to parasitism because judges are then strongly tempted to accept bribes. In the West we pay judges well (we have "bigger government" as this is very expensive) and thus judges are high-status, greatly reducing parasitism. (The problem we have with our judges now is due to lack of clarity on jurisprudence in our constitution - in which case the solution is "better government", better-written law, rather than "less government" e.g. paying judges less or having fewer judges.)

This is why Curt Doolittle often says that good rule of law - eliminating parasitism - is "a very expensive investment". Because it is. It takes massive effort - time, organization, money - to punish parasitism. Libertarians take this extremely expensive investment, and its fantastic (especially compared to the rest of the world) results for granted. This is why they get called "lolberts" - because they operate in fantasy-land. "If we can just teach everyone to have the same 'don't be a parasite' values that I have..." They don't realize that most people on this planet do *not* have the "don't be a parasite, leave me alone to produce" instinct. White people, especially white men, are often fooled into thinking they can "teach the world" because half-to-most white men *do* have the "leave me alone to produce" mindset. But most of the rest of the world do *not* have this instinct. Right now we are seeing many libertarians "mature" into "sovereignty" mindset (team defense against parasitism, punishment/power instead of teaching as primary strategy) simply due to the obvious total failure of our ability to teach the left and the parasitic-minded, non-reciprocal foreign masses they are importing at warp speed.

So it is more clear and accurate to speak of "better government vs worse government" rather than "smaller government vs bigger government". Because in some cases an investment in "bigger" government is necessary to punish a certain form of parasitism. The terms "better" and "worse" government more accurately convey the reality of the Right's optimum strategy than "smaller" and "bigger". Similar to how the words "reciprocity/rule-of-natural-law vs parasitism" are more accurate than "capitalism vs socialism". In both these cases the improved terminology more accurately conveys the fact that the master key to a long-term successful/wealthy/competitive group is enforcing reciprocity (eliminating/suppressing all forms of parasitism on all forms of property).

The problem with terms like "capitalism" and "smaller government" is that they have less-specific definitions and cannot be applied 100% of the time with a good result, whereas enforcing reciprocity and punishing parasitism *can* be applied 100% of the time with good result.