23/09/2024
A 'violent libertarian' is not supposed to be a thing. Even in the libertarian movement's engaged political wing, the Libertarian Party has long required a pledge to eschew political violence for membership.
Unfortunately, an old failed libertarian strategy called fusionism regained popularity within the movement since at least around the time of the TEA Party inception. This wrong-headed strategy promotes an alliance with right-wing populists as a vehicle to a more libertarian society.
I staunchly oppose this strategy and condemn it as unethical and un-libertarian. Right-wing populism is an authoritarian cancer. As long as the libertarian movement engages in this failed fusionist strategy, our movement will only ever be appropriated by fascists who will reduce good libertarian activists to a neo-fascist movement's useful idiots.
Those Americans calling yourselves libertarians as you promote violence and the inevitability of a civil war - you're just wrong for that.
No matter how disillusioned and angry we may become with the current system, we don't make a change for the better by shooting ourselves in the foot... It's okay to relate to sentiments of burning the state to the ground, but it is not okay to completely discard with a commitment to civil society.
I don't think this should even have to be framed as a choice, as I've explained that I think that this is ultimately a false choice - but if you must frame this as a binary choice, this is my math:
*Civil libertarianism > violent libertarianism
*Civil discourse > domestic terrorism
*Domestic Tranquility > Civil War
And a reminder to my fellow libertarians - being anti-war also means being anti-civil war.
What are you doing to preserve the peace - to preserve life?
☮️🗽⚖️🇺🇸