Keeping an open mind about red pill libertarianism

From Red Pill Libertarian
(Redirected from Keeping an open mind)
Jump to: navigation, search

The LP routinely allows second-string Republican politicians to run on the Libertarian ticket, despite the incompleteness of their conversion to libertarianism. The presence of LINOs in the Party has usually been tolerated, since if people don't like them, they can just vote against nominating them. I'm not sure why one would want to go so far as to start expelling those whose positions deviate from current Libertarian orthodoxy.

Core libertarian principles such as the NAP are open to interpretation. That's evident from the fact that if you ask anarcho-capitalists what they think about a person who threatens the President, they may say that it is a bad public relations move, but they usually won't call it an initiation of force. The Libertarian Pledge was deliberately left vague enough that both anarchists and minarchists could interpret it as they pleased. Likewise, there has been disagreement within the Libertarian Party over such matters as the age of consent and the rights of children.

As for the party platform, it is a political document hammered out in committee every two years. It's not holy writ. As Rothbard wrote, "Libertarianism, while vital and true, cannot be merely graven in stone tablets; it must be a living theory, advancing through writing and discussion, and through refuting and combating errors as they arise."

In order for libertarianism to continue evolving as a philosophy, and to compete with new philosophies as they emerge, it's necessary to have a free and robust debate in which arguments are presented and attempts are made to refute them. Libertarians have to be free to synthesize ideas from different philosophical frameworks and come up with their own variants of libertarianism, without worrying about getting kicked out of the Party.

This freedom has thus far resulted in the creation of anarcho-capitalism, geolibertarianism, left-libertarianism, and paleolibertarianism, all of which may deviate in some ways from the minarchism espoused by the national LP platform. Adherents to these different variants have thus far been able to work together within the LP, even if they didn't always have enough support from their fellow Libertarians to get the LP nomination for public office.

My own variant that I'm devising is red pill libertarianism. True, enslaving the female population is arguably contrary to the national platform. But maybe the platform should change. Why not keep an open mind? Feminism is a fairly recent social experiment. It has only been in the last couple centuries that women's status has been changed from that of being property. Red pillers generally argue that there is significant evidence that this experiment has failed and should be rolled back.

I suggest, give the new philosophy time to develop further, and allow for arguments to be presented in its defense, before you judge that espousing this philosophy makes a person deserving of expulsion. Most libertarians are probably unfamiliar with the red pill; it's sufficiently complicated that it takes quite a bit of reading to fully grasp its key concepts and their implications. Red pillers themselves are divided between various camps such as the alt-right and libertarianism. Red pill libertarianism will focus on the intersection between the red pill and libertarianism, explaining the implications of each for the other.

Today I launched a Red Pill Libertarian website which may eventually include a video series, "Why women should be enslaved," which will explain how the childish nature of women, the natural specialization and division of labor between the sexes, and the requirement that families have a strong leader, among other things, suggests that full application of the self-ownership principle should not be extended to women, as this has tended to cause discord and misery.

Are we the party of political correctness now, or are we a Party that can handle internal dissent, even when it challenges assumptions that many hold dear? I tend to agree with Louis Brandeis's sentiment, "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech". So if you think I'm in error, let's hear your speech.

See also[edit]