Kevin Carson defines vulgar-libertarianism as follows:
Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term “free market” in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get [a] standard boilerplate article… arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because “that’s not how the free market works”— implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of “free market principles.”
Vulgar Anti-Vulgar libertarianism is the view that one is being anti-vulgar while espousing views that marginalize the freedom of entire groups. Take note the recent hit piece on C4SS against Milo Ylannopulos https://c4ss.org/content/47911
The American consciousness, and the democratic Western world abhors this idea. Both the Capitalists and Communists alike will scream and call it tyrannical.
What is neglected is that these recent political ideals necessitate leadership. Capitalism naturally leads to bosses and actual producers..Some Capitalists have even attempted to integrate their system into a Confucian model, and stating that bosses should be obeyed in the same way a benevolent monarch should.
It is too often neglected that Capitalism is raping the planet, doesn’t give people the full fruit of their labor, and neglects the good of society at large. Traditional monarchist culture produced things for their use, and not for the idea of massive profit. People generally worked for themselves, and were trained by their father in his own field. There was no confusion as to what would be done when you were to grow up.
A communist society never works. I find it funny that ole Karl Marx cited the Labor Theory of Value, when he wanted money abolished, and everyone to receive what they needed. People would not receive the full fruit of their labor in that system. Those who were to take from those who produce would be receiving more than they ever put into something. This is not to fully advocate the labor theory of value, and ignore those who legitimately need help. This is to point out the sheer hypocrisy of Marxism. You cannot get to such a society without Marx’s Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
I am a Neo-Platonist, and this has led to several problems with Plato’s application of the Forms in the real world.
Plato’s Realm of Forms can be likened to Heaven, or the Mind of God. In it, the perfect form of everything exists. This world is imperfect, but it still has reflections of these forms within it.
For example, the idea of “redness”. There is no perfect red to be found in this world, yet we intuitively have this idea of “redness”. We have ideas of roundness, right angles, Goodness, Truth, etc. However, everything in this world deviates more or less from these ideals. There are perfect forms of man and woman, but they are never perfectly met. This is especially true in our age of modernity.
There exists a perfect form of everything in Plato’s Realm of Forms, and everything in this world is a mere reflection of it. When our soul came from the realm of forms and embodied itself into matter, it tried to make sense of everything with these forms.
Plato fails in his application of forms into the real world. For example, he was for the state taking away children, and was for the ruler having no wife and children.
Confucius had 5 major roles to be carried out in society:
Ruler/Subject, Father/Son, Husband/Wife, Elder Brother/Younger Brother, Elder Friend/Younger Friend.
I figured that it was best to begin by introducing myself. I am doing this on my mobile phone while I am away from home. Forgive me if you find it to be too brief. I go under the pseudonym of Michael Strasser. My interest is mostly in Confucian and Platonic philosophy to bring about a society based upon radical Tradition.
My influences are of course Plato and Confucius. Aside from that, I am influenced by monarchy, esotericism, National-Anarchism, and historical Third Position movements.
I do not hold racial views, but I am not egalitarian in my mindset. Some are stronger, some are wiser, some are better at leadership than others, etc. Even Mikhail Bakunin said that he consulted authority on specific subjects. If he wanted boots made, he went to a shoe maker as an authority.
Monarchy can be applied on a community size scale, and I will probably keep it to that scale when discussing that here. Monarchism can exist alongside other political viewpoints and fight with others in pan-secessionism against the empire.