Originally Posted by
Matt Jackson
Thanks to both Michael and Satch for the recommendations. I'm going to get into Hoppe and the others over the next week. I am guilty of only giving myself a superficial view of libertarianism before i dismissed it because I didn't think it addressed my concerns.
To be pragmatic about it, we would be demographically replaced (at current rates of immigration and birth/fertility) well before an AnCap or minarchy model could ever realistically happen here.
Would it be fair to say libertarian theory is not a real proposal for a model of government, but instead a political ideology which is dedicated to exerting pressure to downsize or block expansion of an existing system of government? As stated, there is no libertarian government or libertarian society, but instead there are societies and governments which contain libertarian movements that act against them.
Asking people in Europe, for example, to think of themselves as individuals will worsen the problem of our demographic replacement here, but that depends if you would define Scotland no longer being the home of the Scottish as a "problem" in the first place.
There's a practical problem with the ideology's requirement of people to behave, and to think of themselves, as individuals because the immigrants arriving here do not do this and they have a strong group identity. They have their own vital cultural norms, values and ideals and are obviously uninterested in replacing their own traditional beliefs with liberal ideas. This is especially true with immigrants from the Islamic world. I would be very surprised if any of these proposed ideas would go down well with the worshipers at a mosque in England.
Instead, they think, and act, as a group to further their own ethnic in-group interests, and we now have a society which strongly encourages ethnic minorities to collectivize along lines of race, but (just as the libertarian prescribes) I, as a native, must think and act as an individual.
An evolutionary strategy like "group identity" has been described here as "unfortunate", and concerns about blood, soil, kith, kin, community, etc. as a "nasty feature". I suppose these concerns are essentially incompatible with the modern ontology in which these libertarian discussions are taking place.
I do wonder if the real purpose of these post-war libertarian theorists, rather than offer a real proposal for the West, is to A) undermine the idea of the welfare state, and B) teach people of European stock to think as themselves individuals. Together, this has the obvious intended effect of preventing a new national socialism from reappearing in the West in the future.