The Question Libertarians Can’t Answer (a response to Stefan Molyneux)

Use No Hooks
The mendacious Salon article


Libertarian Realist also uploaded a video on this topic today:


Share Button

Davis M.J. Aurini

Trained as a Historian at McMaster University, and as an Infantry soldier in the Canadian Forces, I'm a Scholar, Author, Film Maker, and a God fearing Catholic, who loves women for their illogical nature.

You may also like...

8 Responses

  1. Spitty says:

    I prefer Ayn Rand’s formulation that society should forbid the initiation of force, rather than a non-aggression principle. Private property cannot be called an initiation of force by any means, if the property was acquired honestly. There is nothing wrong with using violence in this formulation, if you are only retaliating against someone who started it first.

    In fact, Rand was critical of libertarianism for some of the same reasons you point out, in that it regarded only issues of economics and politics while ignoring ethics and morality.

  2. Maximo Macaroni says:

    Unfortunately, the implicit premise of your question legitimizes any regime that exists or has existed. If “social democracy” or even fascism, has existed for any amount of years, as both have, some may argue that they are both legitimate ways of organizing society. But we needn’t settle just for any old way of organizing social relations that societies have stumbled into over the years. Why not have the best?

  3. Wayne Earl says:


    May I provide, if you will, a Third Side alternative view that I developed almost quite by accident in my early 20s as my time in college shifted from studying political science to engineering? I’ve discussed this with folks over the years, and no one has been able or willing to provide arguments against it. The only other person I am aware of who has posited a similar idea to this is Jack Donovan in The Way of Men, which makes a whole lot of sense, given the very parallel yet entirely independent roads that both Jack and myself took , both of which let us to the Manosphere. Note that Jack and I separately and individually developed these complementary ideas, just that the two of us, as individuals, got here via a very similar thought path.

    My idea is this: We vastly underestimate the importance of non-verbal communication, that (if you will) Lesser Black Magic men and women employ to weave social bonds between each other. A nation, a state, a township, a village, a clan, a gang – these all describe the same fundamental thing – a clotting together of the bonds of frith, or peaceful obligation to each other. A human relationship wi another human is characterized by these bonds, where each is responsible to and responsible for other members of the relationship set. The boundaries of commonly formed relationships codify and fossilize over time, but their only real strength is they rely on selfish self interest, which is the strongest glue of all – in the end, the person that cares more than anyone else possibly can about weather or not that I live or die is me, myself (you if you come with torches and pitchforks, you best be prepared to receive every conceivable horror and genocidal act of violence I can summon in defense of my own life, as my life has value only to myself in that last stand). If the literal survival of person A literally depends on person B standing shoulder to shoulder on the line between Us and Them, then you will find these men forging a bond breakable only by death. As Jack says, the Way of Man is the Way of the Gang.

    If this is really true, then this implies my actual idea: Man has a built in scaling problem that cannot be fixed, it is organic to the man, and is as a part of him as the opposable thumbs he uses to grip his sword in his final stand. Death is the only way to sever the bond of the gang or the war band – a physical death, not an abstract or intellectual parting of ways. All cultural mores in all cultures, all “common law”, all states, all governments, all economic systems, every culture, state, everywhere in the world from the start of history until today is actually a weak,artificial attempt to replicate the bond of the war brother, the bond of the gang, writ large. Because this bond becomes less and less personal as you add geographical size and population density, the bond of blood must be artificially replaced with the bond of thought – codes of honor, codes of law, common law….the US Constitution. NATO. The greater the size, the less personal investment the individual man has, the weaker the bond.

    We do not see a Libertarian state, and we never will,because libertarianism iand of itself is a fantasy. It is attractive to the men of the West because it stirs the atrophied core of the blood bond in all of us, but lets get honest here – libertarianism is a fantasy, born of men who have never known the bonds of war on the battlefield or the bonds of the gang in the neighborhood. It is the fetish of the computer nerd, who thinks that a relationship online is nothing other than a delusion.

    All empires crumble because man has a scaling problem.we are not social creatures. We are individuals, who form bonds of brotherhood in order that we might survive another night in the forest. We are animals with forebrains, and nothing more.

    The only real answer that has ever worked, and will ever work, is the one that Jack Donavan has suggested – start the world.

    Ed: I’ve spoken before about the blood and the earth being the foundation of a society; this is somewhere between a metaphysical and a sociological statement. Man does not live on bread alone, and a state is more than mere regulation of commerce and national defence. Well put: Start the World.

  4. American Yogi says:

    Hi Aurini!

    1. Regarding “rule of thumb” – how do you know the people were outraged by it because they found wife-beating offensive & outrageous and NOT because something smaller than a thumb could not possibly inflict pain on a wife who needed to be “disciplined? I think you are looking at the situation from your own culture, views, ethics and era, not from theirs.

    2. Liked your point about poly centric governments. You see this in countries today that have tribal regions and rural villages, such as India. Disputes in remote Indian villages are settled by the “panchayat” system which is thousands of years old. It is a council of village elders, often both men and women.

    Tribal regions are the closest things I’ve seen to a libertarian set up.

    3. About importing 100,000 Indians into Canada – ALREADY DONE! LOL! To the tune of millions.

    That they may have a different religion than their neighbors does not matter because Canada has religious freedom. As long as populations following the laws of the lands they immigrate to, I would say they are fungible. I don’t see why they wouldn’t be.

    We are free to pick and choose our religions and cultural tastes and ways of life. To change them from year to year even if we want to. As long as we follow the laws of the land and do not initiate violence against others – its all good.

    Om Tat Sat

  5. American Yogi says:

    OK just finished watching and have a fourth point to add.

    4. You say at the 16:05 mark that the Indians in Canada “have a very similar religion and culture to us.” May I ask what religion? Because I believe you are referring to Indian Hindus and Sikhs. You can on to say that the Muslims are at odds with Canadian religion and culture. But if by Canadian religion you mean Christianity, Islam is much closer to Christianity than Hinduism or Sikhism.

    In fact, Islam is the natural result of Abrahamic Monotheism.

    The mother of Middle Eastern Abrahamic Monotheism Judaism and its 2 offspring are Christianity and Islam. They have the same old prophets, the same old stories, and are stemming from the same cultural and geographical environment.

    You must understand that an ideology that says there is only “one true god” will naturally result in tyranny and terrorism, if only psychological terrorism.

    Monotheism is anti-religious freedom and anti-freedom of thought.

    Hindus on the other hand have a completely different approach.

    There’s is one of completely religious freedom and freedom of thought.

    This is why so many persecuted groups of other religions; Zorastrians, Bahais, Jews, Tibetan Buddhist refugees, have sought political and religious asylum in India.

    Hindus can live side by side in respect and peace with other religious groups as long as those groups return the respect, which all of the above I listed have.

    However, as you may know, there has been some issues with Muslims in India. That is because extreme Monotheism teaches that there is only “one true god” – the God of Abraham – and all others must convert to that.

    For this reason Christian missionaries go everywhere on earth, not to experience other religions and cultures, appreciate and learn from them, but rather to destroy them through religious conversions.

    This is a type of psychological terrorism.

    Christian terrorism used to be physically violent, but it has become humble and chastened as of late so the only terrorism it inflicts now is psychological and cultural.

    Islam is still inflicting the physical terrorism but we must understand that an extremist ideology such as “one true god for all” MUST result in form of terrorism or another.

    Such an ideology is not at all comfortable with liberty. Not at all comfortable with religious pluralism and the freedom to choose to worship whoever or whatever I please, or not to worship at all.

    So I disagree that Hindu religion is similar to Christianity because Hinduism allows for so many choices – spiritually speaking.

    Islam is similar to Christianity but it just looks at odds with it because Christianity has been chastened by laws that ensure my religious liberty. But Christians are still not comfortable with taking a place as only one amongst many world religions that we can all choose from now, are they?

    Ed: The root differences between Islam and Christianity, and the similarities between Hinduism and Christianity, are more primal than mere historical documentation; the latter two privilege objective reality over the relative, as opposed to Islam which privileges the relative truth. The acknowledgement of an Objective Truth greater than ourselves leads to humbleness, and religious tolerance, finding its ultimate form in the separation of Church and State.

    Part of the reason Progressives so love Islam is because of their identical ur-theology.

  6. Mark Flowers says:

    1. Mark Flowers is a true dedicated Christian but a non denominational and non church going Christian, a praying man upon his knees and he gives all credit to his survival to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as his savoir and protector of him and his loved ones. Mark has to continually break all curses in Jesus Christ’s name, sent by witch craft and the Satanic agenda.

    2. Mark Flowers is a fighter, a man that will never bow to any evil corruption, to DEATH.

    3. Mark Flowers has had the fatherhood of his children stolen by the masons / system / The Australian Government.

    4. Mark Flowers is a survivor of more than a decade of intense murderous Freemasonry Gang Stalking {a term he coined} and raised in the Federal Magistrates Court Parramatter Sydney Australia in 2009 & 2010 whilst defending his rights to father his children.

    5. Mark Flowers has had so many attempts on his life in the process of Freemasonry gangstalking that they are too numerous to list, most have been whilst driving in road traffic accident setups by gangstalkers . But all manner of threats have come against Mark Flowers, One time a sour mason wielding a hammer at Mark’s head got a lesson in respect and kicked off Mark’s property. The police always fail to follow such death threats against Mark Flowers.

    6. Mark Flowers has self-represented in some 60 appearances in the Federal Magistrates Court, the District Court and the Supreme Court in Australia and all with nil formal education, in fact Mark left school at 14 years and first job was in a lumber yard.

    7. Mark Flowers is a Father first, and a former children’s safety film producer, but the dogs of gangstalking were released on him for doing so. Mark has been fighting ever since and will never give in, as the eternity in spirit and fear of God through Christ Jesus motivates him to be fearless against evil.

    If I fall in this good fight it will be into the arms of my saviour Jesus Christ.

    Brother Mark

  7. American Yogi says:

    “Part of the reason Progressives so love Islam is because of their identical ur-theology.”

    I’m not familiar with the term “ur-theology”. What does it mean?

    I don’t think progressives love Islam. What they love is the under-dog, the “oppressed minority” and Muslims in the West fit that bill.

    Similarly, in India, the Indian progressives always side with Indian Christians and foreign Christian missionaries in India because they are a small, supposedly “oppressed” minority there.

    Of course Christians are not oppressed in India but they will claim like that.

    In India there is a Maoist-Christian axis that is seeking to undermine the stability of the nation.

    Ordinary church goers in the West are giving donations to “missions” in South Asia with no knowledge that their money is being used to fuel a communist separatist movement.

    Google “Naxalites”.

    Ed: The ur-theology refers to whether they privilege reason or emotion first.

  8. American Yogi says:

    The difference in our views of Islam, Christianity and Hinduism are due to our (yours and mine) cultural conditionings and perspectives.

    You grew up in culture that was til now majority Christian so even if you are not Christian yourself, you are culturally influenced by it. You are not familiar with Hinduism.

    Whereas I grew up (from my teens onward) culturally influenced by Hinduism, am a Hindu myself and thus from my perspective Christianity is more akin to Islam than Hinduism.

    And historically that is true as well. They originate in the same region of the world and share the same mythical figures (their ancient prophets like Moses and Abraham). They are time and prophet based (Jesus being the only son of God and Mohammed being the last prophet of God). This means that without acceptance of their savior/prophet that appeared at a certain point in linear time, one cannot attain salvation.

    Hinduism is cyclically based and thus moksha (liberation) can be attained at any time, pre or post the birth of our mythical figures or sages.

    Hindus also employ idols and images in our worship. While Christianity to some extent does this (Catholicism), technically they are not supposed to.

    From my perspective Christians totally privilege emotion over reason.

    There is absolutely no philosophy contained in The Bible at all.

    Their “belief system” is precisely that – based on emotions.

    Hinduism on the other hand is practice based.