“I’m definitely a libertarian. Consenting adults want what they want, and if I’m not supplying it, they will get it somewhere else.” – Breaking Bad
So, I checked out an Ayn Rand book at a public library . . .
To give context to what follows, I was a Libertarian. Yes, a capital “L” version, which is what this post is about. I had the card and everything, and this was back when I had to use MS-DOS® to get anything done. C:/DOS. C:/DOS run. Run DOS Run!
It was also before Libertarianism became rabidly open border and I was always more of a nationalist than a libertarian, so there’s that. I have since realized that libertarianism is a road only to globalism, socialism, and gay communism in 2026. Honestly, libertarianism in the United States doesn’t work for any date past, say the 1880s or so.
Let me elaborate. I’ll start by being fair and noting that not every libertarian believes the same exact things, because the difference between a libertarian wedding and a libertarian funeral is one less opinion.
First, let’s explore the concept of the basic unit of society. As I’ve mentioned before, the basic unit, the atom of society is the family, not the individual. Individuals don’t reproduce unless they’re lower forms of life like paramecium, which only accounts for bankers and Hollywood© executives, and most politicians. Last I checked, only a man and a woman can reproduce.
A friend ordered a bride from Eastern Europe. Sadly for him, the Czech is still in the mail.
Libertarianism, like communism, is based on freedom and the removal of constraints. What constraints? Well, family, religion, tradition, ancestors, culture, border, community, and hierarchy. The first thing the reds did when they took over Spain was burn the churches, kill the nuns, and abolish marriage.
Let me assure you, Francisco Franco was far too kind to these people when he won.
Libertarianism, like communism and globalism, depends on Homo Economicus.
What’s a person? Well, one Homo Economicus is very much like another. So much so, that they have the same desires, the same wants, the same potential, the same value. In extremes of this viewpoint, they even have the same intellectual potential. Don’t know if you’ve noticed it, but smart kids very, very rarely come from dumb parents. Idiocracy was right in that respect.
I knew one person who was so dumb they tried to drown themselves on a pool table.
Is it any wonder that rabid Libertarians and Communists both want open borders and free trade?
The problem is that ripping out family, religion, tradition, ancestors, culture, border, community, and hierarchy removes all of the intermediate steps that prevent communism or GloboLeftism from even existing. If you view your nation as something given to you on loan by your ancestors to bequeath to your kids, well, that’s an entirely different mindset than “Let’s go shopping at Wal-Mart© or let in infinity foreigners for cheap strawberries”.
These institutions and traditions, and, yes, collective beliefs that Libertarianism wants to remove are the real anti-communist and anti-globalist technology.
Where Libertarianism is strongest is against the state as a monopolist of violence and against price controls. To be clear, when the firearm was invented, the state monopoly of violence disappeared, and they knew it. The idea of how governments should be configured was in play.
And this occurred in Europe. Why Europe? Because European nations typically had a dominant state religion, a national people, a single language, borders, and some with ancestors going back thousands of years in the same plot of land. These people had all of that in common, and could therefore ask the question of, “how should we set up a government?”
Europe refuses to put caps on new immigrants. I thought the French had an excess of berets?
As an example, if the Founding Fathers had consisted of Somalians, Indians, and Nigerians, they would have just spent their time in tribal warfare against each other. No, the Founding Fathers were mainly Welsh, Irish, Scottish, and English. Franklin was pretty sure the Germans were suspect. The United States wasn’t conceived for moslims. Nope. It was conceived for a predominantly white, Christian, moral people with low time-preference, trust, honesty, deferred gratification, and a shared sense of ownership of the nation as a whole.
And Libertarianism was okay for that group. Don’t like the rules in Pennsylvania? Move west to Ohio. Don’t like the rules in Ohio? Move west to Utah. I mean, move there if you’re Mormon.
This might have continued to work okay, but we ran out of land, and we started importing people from cultures that atomized the nation. And slavery. That was a stupid idea. Guys, always pick your own cotton. And your own strawberries. And write your own programs.
Soon enough, we had “the oppressed” and “the marginalized” which are fodder for a client class for socialists. Add in the Libertarian desire to remove every cultural constraint as an “illegitimate barrier to trade” and you get, well, chaos. Honestly, you get India after you’ve spent down the cultural inheritance of what was formerly a nation.
What’s orange and sounds like a parrot? A carrot.
Free trade doesn’t mean free to trade anything, it means trade free from coercion. Libertarians spend forever and a day criticizing closed borders, tariffs, vice laws, industrial policy, and cultural constraints that have made it into law.
But HR? The credentialization of every job? Payment processors excluding people based on politics? Universities spewing out carbon-copy socialists? Social media where people aren’t even allowed to utter the phrase “Great Replacement”? NGOs? Asset managers?
Everything a company does is fine. That’s free trade.
No!
Marxism 1.0 wanted the party to own everything. Now, GloboLeftism is fine with private ownership. The companies and the media do the heavy lifting and shift coercion into forms that don’t look exactly like the “State” that Libertarians love to hate.
Libertarianism fails because it calls collective self-defense “collectivism” when America is being assailed by collectives of Indians and Mexicans and moslems and other groups that all have a collective strategy to protect themselves at the expense of the rest of society. If you try to get a job in certain sectors of the economy, if you don’t speak Spanish, aren’t a Brahmin, don’t bow to Allah, or don’t go to synagogue, well, you’re never going to get that job. They’ll pick people more like them.
When a strip club shuts down for the night does the sign say, “Sorry, we’re clothed”?
Markets really are the main engines of prosperity, but random, chaotic markets aren’t the predictor of economic success, it’s the people. In Sweden, all adopted (non-European) foreign children perform well below the norm on IQ tests. Except the Koreans.
Go figure. People make a difference. I’d rather live in socialist all-Dane Denmark than in multicultural Johannesburg.
Libertarianism fails because it cannot generate or defend the particular social order that limited government requires. Full stop. The Founding Fathers didn’t spring forth from a Libertarian Eden. Nope. They were forged in plain-old British values.
Liberty without a people, a border, and a moral center is a corridor, and corridors get occupied by whoever shows up, and whoever owns the institutions. Limited government isn’t a software package that works on any computer, it is very particular on what platforms it works.
So, don’t treat it like a software program and skip to the end and hit, “I agree.”
A form of libertarianism could maybe exist in a very small, racially homogeneous society but the main problem with libertarianism (other than libertarians) is that it fails to understand the basics of human nature.