It's Time For Libertarians To Be 'Mugged By Reality'

At a US Libertarian party convention, candidate and all around rascal John McAfee told party members they ought to be ashamed of their demographic composition:

Shame on Libertarians For Being White Males? Julie Borowski Responds to John McAfee

“When I first joined the Libertarian party, two things stood out very starkly. One, 75% of you are men. Number two, 99.8% of you are white. Shame on you.”

Shame on you?

Are these white male libertarians blocking others from joining the Libertarian Party?

Absolutely not. That has not been my experience. As a woman, I have been invited to speak at several LP state conventions this year. I even helped moderate a LP presidential debate in Illinois. If these white men are purposefully turning away women, it’s news to me.
...

Libertarians all want to expand our base. Instead of shaming us, show us how it’s done. Lead by example.

Despite constantly being accused of racism and sexism (as everyone who in any way opposes the establishment left wing is), libertarians are the most inclusive, race-blind, gender-blind people in the world. They would jump for joy if women flocked to their cause; they would hug any ethnic 'minority' who supported them. Unlike the leftist, who feigns concern for 'disadvantaged' groups in order to build political support for their bribery and extortion machine, libertarians are individualists and therefore truly support equality in the only sense it can exist in this world.

Why, then, is it that not every demographic group is in love with the libertarian ideal? Why is it that only filthy white men are interested? The first step to getting the right answers is to ask the right questions. (hint: I don't mean "how much more community outreach do we need").

http://fathersmanifesto.net/foundingfathers.htm

A while ago I remember reading something Vox Day had written on America's moral decline from republic to empire, here:

It is now clear that one cannot catch Americanism. Just as the Irish, German, Scandinavian, and Italian immigrants never fully grasped the English concepts of liberty and limited government*, thereby transforming what had been a voluntary union of sovereign states into an involuntary empire ruled by a sovereign central government, the subsequent wave of immigration from Mexico and other third-world nations has transformed what had been a rich and powerful empire into an impoverished and corrupt one...

This is not to say that it was ever the intention of the various waves of immigrants to destroy the very haven they sought, it was merely the natural consequence of immigrants bringing their cultures with them, as they always do.

America, post revolution, is perhaps the best expression of libertarianism (liberalism, as it would have been called) humans have managed so far, taking into account the scale.

Even though libertarian ideas are as popular today as ever, no-one has managed a similar level of freedom/restrictions on government, either in the USA or anywhere else. I suggest there are two factors for this:

1. Agrarian nature of revolutionary America, versus Urbanised nature of modern dyscivilisation (independence vs mutual dependency)

2. Demographics of the people involved in making political decisions.

America was founded by Celts and Anglosaxons. Here is some interesting background info on the Revolutionary War. Ignoring the secret society chicanery and royal gang warfare on both sides, the fact is Scottish Americans played a major part in the revolution. (Not to say that Scots necessarily love liberty - quite the contrary, it's embarrassing how they have fallen for socialism in the present day. But that's another post.)

From there you can chart the history of waves of migration that have coincided with a change in public attitude and an increase in the scope of government.

Anyway, you ask, what has this got to do with libertarians? Any ethnic group can - at its worst moments - fall for statism, and therefore any ethnic group can - at its best moments - stand for liberty, right?

Well, that would be true if there was any historical evidence to support it. As libertarians clearly see, judging by the composition of their movement, not everyone is interested in individual rights, private property, and limiting government as much as possible. In fact, most of the world's people do not give a hoot about these ideals, instead preferring their own tribal interests. They only pretend to care about liberal ideals insofar as it benefits those tribal interests.

Individualism is not a global thing, it's a 'some white men and a few token others' thing. There is no evidence for other cultures showing equal interest in ideas of limited or no government.

I like libertarianism/classical liberalism. However, as its main proponents decline in numbers in 'their own' countries, and are replaced by other tribes who statistically do not care for liberty or equality of opportunity, libertarians need to face reality and accept that the future of their ideas absolutely requires the presence of people who, at least sometimes, take them on board.

Related - the 'coup' in Brazil

It is one of the truisms of politics that a conservative is often enough a former liberal who has been 'mugged by reality.' - Frank Gaffney