untitled1

My assumption is that the basic assumption of Liberal thought is that all men are, in all moral respects, equal and should be treated equally. This would explain their position on race, creed, upbringing, sex etc. Men of from different races have the same potential, men from the working classes have the same potential as those from the upper classes if only they had access to the same education and resources, men and women in most respects have the same potential. It seems to me to be the logical and moral reasoning behind the policies of liberalism, the branches: Free trade, “Democracy”, “freedom” of speech, press and religion, secularism and internationalism.

Free trade is better than Interventionism or State Capitalism or a Planned Economy because all men have the same potential to make money so all men should have the same access to the economy is my strawman of the liberal argument. There is no purely practical argument for Free Trade, especially today when the excesses of international free trade and barely-fettered-capitalism has resulted in China, a country which employs State Capitalism, dominating the world economy. Countries which engage in Free Trade are targets for countries which engage in State Capitalism or Interventionism. Morally the argument that all men should have equal access to the economy is flawed as not every man has the same potential, which is manifest reality if one simply looks at the people who are successful in our economy. And those that succeed in a free economy naturally keep out others, corporations lobby governments to increase bureaucratic overheads for businesses in order to destroy their smaller rivals. The argument for Free Trade and a Free Economy is that it is fair, the argument against Free Trade and a Free Economy is that it is, in fact, not fair.

“Democracy” is the best governmental system because all men are given a voice, all men deserve a part in politics because it is part of the social contract, a government which does not give a piece of power to all it’s citizens is immoral as it breaks the social contract, is my strawman of the liberal argument. Firstly a caveat, I put Democracy in quotations because I do not consider the modern states which say they are Democracies to actually be so, but for now I will talk of modern Universal Representative “Democracy” as though it really is Democratic. The practical arguments against democracy could fill the pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica, but to give the moral arguments against it: 1. It isn’t really democratic, therefore it is a lie. 2. It is tyrannical (or has the same propensity towards tyranny as other forms), which is something that people assume it is not. 3. Not everyone deserves a voice in politics or a piece of power, why should it not be something earned rather than something given freely? 4. The implication that no other system of government can uphold the social contract is fucking stupid.

“Freedom” of speech, press and religion isn’t even worth speaking of. It is a limited tolerance, and it should be, and is therefore not freedom as it is not complete. My point being: a country should not accept all forms of speech, calls to violence against the state being an example, a country should not accept all forms of media, propaganda from subversive elements being an example and a country should not accept all forms of religion, a hypothetical example would be a sacrificial cult akin to the Aztecs. All these examples are or would be suppressed by any state today.

Secularism is mostly here in Liberal thought because most religions (that I can think of) are profoundly anti-liberal, even Buddhism (at least it’s non westernised form) denies my proposed root of liberal thought, that all men are born practically equal.

Internationalism is here the belief that all nations have a responsibility to one another in the world community of nations, the same way that a neighbourhood of individuals have a responsibility to one another. It is a ridiculous notion because in a neighbourhood of individual people if one completely destroys there own life through drink or gambling his neighbours have no compulsion to even try to help him beyond perhaps some feigned sympathy, unless they owe him a debt. Neighbours have a responsibility to defend one another from violence originating from outside the community.

In conclusion the policies of Liberalism are flawed, though all policies are flawed, and the basic premise of Liberal thought is simply wrong. Men are not born equal in almost any way, in terms of potential, in terms of moral worth or value. A man born healthy is greater than one born sickly, a man born with natural potential should be shepherded into a role greater than one born mundane, the man born in wedlock has a moral superiority within his existence greater than the man born a bastard, woman and men are not equal and have different roles which they are naturally more suited to. No man is equal to another. The leaves are brown, the branches are rotten and the roots are without soil, this is a tree without value.