I think one branch that needs to be remembered is conflict theory & analysis - people like to think of it as just part of international relations, but I think that is too much of an assumption. There are many ways in which conflict manifests that do not take place between official state actors, and the methodology of conflict (tactical, strategic, covert) extends to many other realms, including so-called peacetime political competition. One theorist* said "war is a continuation of politics by other means" but today it seems the opposite is equally true that politics is just war by other means.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Machiavelli, Rousseau, Von Clausewitz*, and others should get consideration as theorists also, but one western theorist I think really needs to be understood is Thomas Hobbes.
Though it has often been fashionable to tune out the arguments of those like Hobbes among those who prefer optimistic sunny viewpoints, and dismiss traditionalist statism as too paternalistic, I think in a realist sense, Hobbesian arguments get proved right over and over, by the spiralling dystopianism the world is clearly falling into this century.
There was a whole tradition of conservatism existing in the west long before Americanized libertarianism claimed ownership of "the right", and it still clearly exists in the eastern world. The more traditional form which ties itself to nationalism (the real kind, not just racialized prejudice or theories of ethnic supremacy), and is tied to the idea of putting responsibility to country and the greater good above personal indulgence or gains. Does power exist? Yes. Does wealth exist? Yes. But there is the recognition that it comes from something besides oneself, and part of having power and wealth is owing something to the larger system of society and the legitimate authority which made it all possible.
A lot of people here seem to listen to things I say and think "What is that? communism? fascism? Eco-centric misanthropy?" I will spell it out - a lot of of what I believe is it is pure Hobbesian conservatism.
The kind that says order does not magically keep itself, and that liberty without limits turns into chaos & despotism - rule by individual concerns and greed alone is bound to end in catastrophe for all.
For example: Those who dismiss ecological concerns as "the left" always miss the point that putting survival first is not some inherently leftist concern. If the ecosystem must be protected, it is because the earth's ecosystem being alive is necessary for survival - and survival must always defeat self-indulgence. Environmentalism can be just as survival-oriented as militarism. (Even if eco -activists are usually rejecting militarism because war is so destructive, and too many times for for false & greedy reasons.)
On the other hand, both laissez-faire capitalism and marxism are economic determinist theories at their core - they recognize no value beyond materialist economics, and believe all other things stem from economic motivations. People are nothing more than economic units to them, and society's other aspects are just ways of expressing economic activity.
Add that sort of materialism to a "fuck everyone else, life should be all about doing & getting what I want, without consequences" attitude, what you get is libertarianism.
To me, that is just a disguised form of tyranny - if some do it, they revel in the chance to lie, cheat, and steal their way to comfort and power, deliberately destroying happiness and life itself for others for their own gain. They corrupt and takeover the government and manipulate its legitimate use of force, bending it towards stopping those who might challenge their unjust acts by word or deed. Property (theirs) is more sacred than lives, or life. Outlaw behavior is not just tolerated, but celebrated as an affirmation of the system's natural lack of ethics, so long as the "outlaw" takes only from those below, never those above. Laws will forever be designed to be full of holes, so those with means can escape from consequences & costs. The authorities are only there to protect the money, not the people. The less you have, the less you are, the less your life and your rights matter. The more you have, the more liberty you have to do whatever you want, no matter how harmful, without any restraint or consequences. That is the libertarian social order at work in actual practice (not just pie-in-the-sky theory).
Granted, this is not the by-the-book definition of libertarianism, just my criticism of its current real-world application. Thomas Hobbes knew that power without responsibility and coercion without legitimacy, does not lead to order or prosperity. It leads to despotism and chaos, by plain old human nature doing what it does. (Even anarchists have rules, but they can be described as optimists about human nature, but pessimists about power.)
The more this "do whatever you can get away with" attitude pervades society, the more society degrades & collapses into exactly what Hobbes described: "a war of all against all", self-defeating corruption & violence that breaks down every functional system eventually. People are "free" in the sense that there is no credible authority that people to officially answer to, but this condition does not elevate nations; it erodes them until they collapse. Force is what rules, without any legitimacy and without any sort of popular consent. Those with the means go on taking and killing, carrying out their own wishes free from any consequences except perhaps the retaliation of rivals. Look at Somalia, Haiti, and so on.
Even if a country's wealth can be maintained (through constant organized theft from others) you end up with a society that is equal parts deluded/manipulated political extremism and criminal conduct passed off as legitimate commerce. The state becomes tyrannical by design; it does not protect people or higher notions of survival, but instead protects a "way of life" where a small number can commit crimes against the people (or nature) and profit by doing so. Such "freedom" is for only the favoured few, and the lawful authorities' coercive force is used to lock the rest of society into a rigged competition for resources which they can never win. Look at the USA today, and tell me this is not what they have become - an oligarchy not a democracy, where oligarchs rule and private armies of thugs enshrine the permanence of mafia-style exploitation.
That is why even if in some ways I come off like someone all over the right/left spectrum, and definitely a nationalist (an eco-nationalist?), I will never be counting myself as a libertarian. Libertarian to me means someone who refuses to live by the same rules & responsibilities as everyone else, someone seeking as ideal conditions protection for themselves but no protection for anyone else (from them).
Being Canadian, as I see Canada's ideals in terms that place a heavy emphasis on "collective responsibility & survival", not just individual rights.
Quite a bit of individual freedom exists under our system, because the individual is protected by a social contract which enshrines the forceful application of collective will as the only legitimate use of force. All are bound to that lawful authority, and it has legitimacy because all are bound to it equally, without exceptions. I do not reject all notions of liberty (as described by JS Mill) or natural rights (as described by Rousseau), but I do not play them as trump cards to invalidate the idea of collective responsibility.
In other words, people have individual rights they can enjoy because of the ways in which they stand together under one common set of rules & responsibilities. Therefore if someone transgresses against everyone else or does harm by their actions, that it the point at which their individual rights end, and they can be legitimately be restrained / punished by everyone else. Perhaps this is the point at which liberalism would agree to such restraint, while libertarianism would not. But more Hobbesian view is one where it is a matter of survival - that it is necessary to set hardened but consented-to boundaries upon individual conduct, with the power to actually enforce it.
(Well, that is my political science contribution today. No agreement necessary.)
Last edited:
