niedziela, 20 czerwca 2010

O Korwinie po angielsku / Pseudolibertarian vs. True Libertarian as demonstrated in latest elections

There's nothing more irritating than a left-libertarian nihilist zealot, who is cynically trying to flak rational, realpolitik approach to expanding liberty. This is my Facebook fight against such a intellectual fraud, commenting on the latest presidential elections in Poland. The only true libertarian candidate, Janusz Korwin-Mikke (Polish Ron Paul), is seen by pseudolibertarians as a threat to "real liberty", just like Ron Paul is flakked by Randroids etc.
Have a nice read and a good laugh:

Kel Thuz
@Lilianne, calling our only true libertarian, mr. Korwin-Mikke, a clown, is either total ignorance on your side, or just sheer malevolence. Korwin-Mikke converted to libertarianism at least two generations of Poles, taught them to think out of the box and not believe what TV says. His original approach to libertarianism is sadly not widely spread beyond Poland, as many modern libertarian big wigs could learn from his "socio-cybernetic" observations.
But back to elections and real politics, the party Korwin-Mikke is the founding father, UPR, has been the only true libertarian, pro-market, pro-liberty political entity in Poland for the last 20 years, and not mentioning it again is either deep ignorance from your side, or just plain malevolence. The political establishment in Poland has been allied against UPR and Korwin-Mikke since the very beginning, seeing them as the ultimate threat to the status quo of the crony system the "round table" of communists and Solidarity built.
There isn't and there will not be other way to destroy the shackles of tyranny in Poland than by the ultimate triumph of Korwin-Mikke and people raised on his ideas and following his example.

Lilianne Blaze
"True libertarian"? He's a clown and a fake, and I'm pretty sure Ayn Rand would agree (and before anyone jumps with some smartass comment - I know AR wasn't a libertarian, I'm merely stating that she would agree with my opinion on K-M). Most of his views on how a country should be governed are not only incompatible but directly contrary to any serious definition of libertarianism. I don't know how many people he "converted", I do know that many of these who vote for him see him merely as least incompetent (or "lesser evil") or the only non-socialist. I believe in, or I "reason in", free market as envisioned by Ayn Rand, therefore I won't vote for him because if he gains any true influence and tries to implement his aberrant version of free market he will only delay implementation of the real thing. Let me make myself clear - he won't get my vote exactly because I read and know him, and I consider any accusations of "ignorance" as a baseless ad hominem, "malevolence" I won't even comment, there's no point. While it's true he's the least incompetent one and "lesser evil", and what he says about "round table" and "band of four" is (mostly) true, and he might be a right man to start dismantling that cesspool, he's no libertarian and running a country is way beyond him. He should stick to writing books and playing Bridge, oh wait, pretending to be a libertarian is his gimmick to sell more books, maybe he should hook up with Gretkowska? They have much more in common than either would admit.

Kel Thuz
So I will ask politely. Precisely WHICH points of his world view or his program are not libertarian enough for you? Eliminating income tax? Reform of judiciary system to make it less prone to corruption? Eliminating or cutting down on all state institutions except police and military? Eliminating (or vetoing as president) all legislation which inhibits economic activity of individuals? And on, and on...
Simply, I haven't encountered a truly RATIONAL critique of Korwin-Mikke, all I hear from histeric frauds like you that he's a "clown" or "not true libertarian". Well, guess what? Korwin is the most serious person in Polish politics for the last 20 years, all of his remarks have come true (regarding the inevitable default of social security, regarding the inevitable default of the Euro zone, etc.), he was the only one to SEE through the lies and propaganda of the socialist international, and he has been always true to his convictions, acting on them every single day.
"Running a country is way beyond him" - LOL, I thought libertarians were intelligent enough to know that country is not to be RUN by government - free people run the country with their economic activity, while the government sits idly and only protects individual rights. And only Korwin has the right ideas and understands the philosophy of individual rights to reform government for the sole purpose of protecting them. Starting with our military, which doesn't even have a commander for the time of war, and is in dismal shape.
Libertarianism doesn't just happen. It will not appear magically from the sky. When EU defaults and crumbles under nationalist resentiments, while economies of its member states collapse, free market will not automatically appear - because always in times like this a dictator comes and puts under his iron boot everyone and everything. A country needs to be ready for such an eventuality - people need to know the principles of freedom and know whom to trust. I don't know anyone except Korwin-Mikke for this role.

Oh, and his role in spreading libertarian ideas among the Poles is second to none, so your opinion is simply baseless and untrue.
Now, I suspect that if Ayn Rand met him, she would either love him or hate him. But her opinions she gave about American libertarians like Rothbard are really not worth mentioning, because, being 100% serious, Rothbard is several classes higher than Rand in EVERY RESPECT as a scholar and rational person. That's why I wouldn't give a shit about Rand's rants about supposed Korwin's "clownishness". At the same time, Korwin is not a pacifist left-libertarian douchebag hippie, but a true conservative like Hans Herman Hoppe, a militant defender of Liberty, who would not hesitate shooting a socialist right in the head when the time comes.
That's all. Non-Korwinist libertarians are a joke and we will remember your stance when the Day Of The Rope comes.

Lilianne Blaze

Grow up, fanboy.

" I thought libertarians were intelligent enough to know that country is not to be RUN by government"

Obligatory smartass comment? You do know Korwin is a monarchist? A wannabe king? Or did you miss that part?

"That's all. Non-Korwinist libertarians are a joke and we will remember your stance when the Day Of The Rope comes."

Thanks for showing us all what irrational cult the "korwinists" are.

Kel Thuz
Lose that squirm, moralist spinster.

Of course Korwin is a monarchist, just like Hans Herman Hoppe is, and every sane person on earth. For monarchy is a system of a PRIVATELY OWNED GOVERNMENT - in complete axiological agreement with all libertarian foundaments (including non-aggresion axiom).
But I guess utopists who believe in modal 'limited government' fallacy will never accept the Natural Order of Private Property.
But guess what? Korwin will not inthrone himself after becoming a president. So don't worry. But he will reign as a king, that's for sure - no other candidate has the dignity, height, charm and charisma of a true Monarch as Korwin.

For the purpose of these elections I surely am a Korwinist cultist, just for the sake of crushing the stupidity of democracy and its poster boys. Beyond that, I am often involved in both economic and philosophical conflicts with Korwin-Mikke and people from UPR and his new party. Being a staunch adherent to the Austrian School of Economics (I won't even bother asking if you know its basics, it's futile) and the Rothbardian rational ethics, I find myself often at odds with most Polish right-wingers and moderate libertarians who form the majority of Korwin's electorate, but don't understand the gut of the essence in either economics or philosophy.
But we always unanimously support the idea of Liberty and its unquestionable Champion, both in words and deeds, namely KORWIN!
It is completely incomprehensible for a rational person to NOT support Korwin in this circus of democratic elections. But I guess wishful thinkers like you will never understand Realpolitiks. Why bother supporting the fight for liberty when it will magically appear some day. Yeah, right.

Lilianne Blaze
Read Korwin's blog, then Voices for Reason or any other libertarian and/or objectivist blog. Like pyrite and gold.

Monarchy is incompatible with libertarianism, the possibility of corruption is even greater that in what we have now. Compatible with non-aggression axiom? You're kidding, right? What guarantee would I have he won't decide to "nationalize" my gesheft someday? His word?? No, it has to be hardcoded into the system, not dependent on some joker-king's whim.

"no other candidate has the dignity, height, charm and charisma of a true Monarch as Korwin." Again - you're kidding, right? Charm, charisma, dignity? Have you actually seen him speak? He keeps insulting pretty much everyone, and his smartass witticisms are just infantile.

"unquestionable Champion, both in words and deeds, namely KORWIN!" As I said, his political "career" is mostly a publicity stunt to sell more books, just like Gretkowska, nothing more. He sees some problems with the current system, true, but give him real power and what he'll do with it won't be much better than what we have now.

Have you noticed how he frequently slips into, of all things, collectivism and group responsibility? How's that "libertarian"? Where's the liberty, freedom and individuality in that? He's just another fraud, he doesn't give a fuck about all that, he just wants to be an alpha. Read him, watch him, for a truly intelligent and rational person it's all visibile - he's full of contradictions and while he sees some problems he has no real, planned solutions.

Also, you seem to completely ignore the fact that "true libertarianism" and "true conservatism" (I agree K-M is a true conservative; same applies to "true liberalism") are simply incompatible. You can be a libertarian with slight conservative leanings, you can be a conservative with slight libertarian meanings, you can't be "true this and true that". First, "true conservatism" is by definition irrational and opposed to many individual rights. K-M is a true conservative and faux libertarian. So called "right(/left)-wing libertarians" always and by definition support some rights and freedoms and oppose others. True libertarianism is neither left/liberal nor right-wing/conservative.

Again, pyrite and gold. Thanks, I'll pass and wait for the real thing.

I don't see the point in continuing this conversation. Clearly you don't understand even what your own guru says.

Kel Thuz
Korwin's blog is the most intellectually stimulating libertarian e-publication on the net, period. Korwin's ingenuity and unique insight cannot be compared to American libertarians or Objectivists' blogs, and it is precisely like gold (Korwin) and bronze (any other). Especially Objectivist blogs are so dull and repeatetive, that I've stopped reading VoR long ago. I dailyread though, but still it is a niche compared to the variety and profoundity of subjects Korwin writes about. Any intelligent person can agree. I haven't been bored with Korwin for 10 years.
As for monarchy, we are talking about private estates, where the owner is like a king. Anarcho-monarchist libertarianism, as proposed by Hans Herman Hoppe (the greatest libertarian philosopher and Austrian economist alive), is not only the only logical conclusion of Rothbardian rational ethics and Austrian economics, but is the CORE of sustaining liberty and Natural Order for ages.
In contrast, a constitutionally limited republic as endorsed by minarchists (Randians mostly), is self-contradictory. Not only it never worked in practice, it does not give ANY GUARANTEE whatsoever that the impersonal "limited government" will not nationalize your gesheft one day either. But with a monarch at least you can kill the bastard. Try to regicide a republic.
The only protection against state invasion is the system of Property Rights, where individuals have the supreme power, also to court and execution of force free from government monopoly.
Randians would never allow that, so we won't discuss them anymore.
The only minarchist sympathetic to such a system of Natural Order is Korwin, of course.

What's left? Korwin "insulting everyone" ? Since when telling truth about feminists, leftists, gay activists and other scum is "insulting"? Such bullcrap could've only been written by a woman - that is, a person frequently incapable of rational reasoning and who bases her opinions on pure emotion (now I'm sexist, fine by me).

Now, as for selling books, as much as I love Ayn, I could just as easily say that all her post-Atlas activity was aimed at selling more books. Give me a break.

Korwin is a person with true convictions, which he demonstrated at every opportunity, either at politics or at publishing. I really cannot see a SINGLE RATIONAL POINT in your critique, not mentioning hard evidence.

Also, you seem to completely ignore the fact that true libertarianism and true conservatism are simply MUTUALLY INDISPENSIBLE, but as you probably never heard about John Randolph Club, formed by Rothbard and Hoppe and your adventure with libertarianism is probably only incidental, you also never read the seminal work "Democracy - The God That Failed", where Hoppe explains the reasons why libertarianism is culturally compatible only with BOURGOIS, CONSERVATIVE CORE CULTURE, and is not compatible with hippie, progressive, multicultural anticulture of today's welfare state. Incidentally, Ayn Rand had a similar opinion, although she regarded collectively all libertarians hippies (typically irrational woman behaviour, unfortunately) and her mindless followers of today perform the same mistake.
Anyway, I invite you to to learn more about the true libertarianism based in Natural Order and stop making such a sad scene of yourself.

3 komentarze:


    Dziwię Ci się Kelthuz że jeszcze nie zmiażdzyłeś tego matołka, internetowego celebryty i autorytetu dla dzieci neo siłą swojego racjonalnego argumentu. Pluje on na Korwina i na jego zwolenników (w tym Ciebie) jak oszalały powtarzając hasła promowane przez lewacką propagandę nie poparte żadną wiedzą czy argumentami. Gdybym miał twoją siłę przebicia w internecie bez litości bym go zaorał na przykład poprzez nagranie odpowiedzi. Niestety nie mam...

  2. "Not only it never worked in practice, it does not give ANY GUARANTEE whatsoever that the impersonal "limited government" will not nationalize your gesheft one day either. But with a monarch at least you can kill the bastard. Try to regicide a republic"

    Podobnie, jak żaden monarcha nic nie zrobił dla zwiększenia wolności swoich poddanych (oprócz I RP, ale według niektórych to nie była monarchia)
    Śmieszne jest to, że z jednej strony piszesz o tym, że można się pozbyć króla a z drugiej o niemożliwości pozbycia się republiki. Dlaczego nie napiszesz o możliwości zmiany prezydenta i niemożliwości odejścia od monarchii?
    Tak samo jak można zabić króla tak też można w wyborach zmienić prezydenta. Dlatego właśnie republika stanowi wyższy poziom rozwoju cywilizacyjnego bo nie ma potrzeby sięgania po przemoc fizyczną, która w tych sytuacjach z reguły kończy się wojną domową rujnującą kraj.

    Ach Ci monarchiści, nigdy nie dorosną, szkoda.

  3. Zmiana prezydenta nic nie daje, jeśli ustrój jest zaprojektowany tak, że rządzi biurokracja i legislatywa, a nie nominalny przełożony administracji. Wystarczy popatrzeć na USA. Konstytucja jest świstkiem papieru, którego moce może odebrać byle sejm, do tego zastraszyć trybunały, lub zwyczajnie je przekupić.
    Przyczyną jest własność publiczna państwa, czyli niczyja.
    W monarchii jest zupełnie inny schemat bodźców dla rządzącego, i kłamstwa powypisywane przez Stanisława można zbyć jedynie gromkim: DOUCZ SIĘ!