Monday, February 18, 2019

The Not-So-Universal Libertarianism

I first came across Storey through a piece he wrote regarding his conversation with Frank van Dun.  To summarize: Storey viewed the medieval Church as the biggest hindrance to liberty and the promoter of centralized statism; van Dun set him straight.  Just how straight we will find in this book.

Storey has offered an introduction and outline to this work, through a piece published at the Mises site:

The study of Western Civilization has been all but eradicated. This was no accident but, rather, an aggressive policy of leftist academe which has used exclusionary tactics to dominate and pervert the culture and purpose of our universities since the 1960s and 70s. But, for us students, driven underground, Western history is the greatest treasure trove of almost every faculty. Not least of these is natural law.

I will cover the book over a series of several posts, beginning with this introduction.  The book is written in four parts: Natural Law, Socio-Biology, Politics, and Family.  You can imagine that one or more of these parts might touch on politically incorrect topics.

There are brief recommendations from individuals that will be well-known to readers here:

Gerard Casey: “Readers…won’t like [this] book – they will either love it or hate it!”

Walter Block: “I take my hat off to this author for his fearlessness and bravery.”

Frank van Dun: “[Storey] makes a compelling case for a conscientious libertarianism, rooted in the basic idea of the Western philosophical and Christian tradition…Storey effectively destroys the caricature of libertarianism as “globalist market fundamentalism” that became prominent in the Cold War era.”

Western civilization promoted, market fundamentalism demoted.  Something for everyone to hate!

Storey describes his own journey in his “libertarian beliefs regarding law/politics and their exclusively Western character and point of origin.”  Richard Duchesne and Frank van Dun are identified as his greatest influences.  Through these individuals, Storey discovered the value of the Middle Ages and Christendom to our Western tradition and law.

Moreover, [van Dun] was crucial in teaching me the nemesis of this order – modernism, specifically in the form of hyper- or Lutheran individualism.

Storey looks not only to historical causes of the decline of Western civilization, but even to more recent events like mass immigration from countries whose individuals do not hold to the same natural law tradition.  Such immigration is no accident:

Rather, these are deliberate acts, motivated by leftist ideologies which are dead set against the principles of natural law and justice and the hierarchical natural order – everything I have come to love about my dying civilization.


Like I said, there will be something in this book for almost everyone to hate.  Everyone on the left will hate it – including left-libertarians; everyone who views libertarianism primarily through an economic lens will hate it.


  1. Looking forward to this.


    1. Wow! Like hearing a track from the Layla sessions for the first time in years!

    2. Howdy UC!

      Good to hear from you. I believe Owen Benjamin lives up there in your neck of the woods now. You familiar with him? If not, you gotta check him out. This guy is hilarious, and right... about a lot. He's a comedian exiled from Hollywood for calling 'trans-kids' child abuse (which it is). This recent video of his had me nearly in tears I was laughing so hard.

      He walks a nuanced line that I've also found myself on. For instance, he's not a white nationalist, but he is a white enthusiast proud of and ready to defend the Western and Christian traditions. He recognizes that there are and have been lots of evil Jews, but he doesn't hate or condemn them all for it. He does love to make fun of them, however, and for a lot of reasons, but mostly because 1) they often deserve it, and 2) it's the most sacred taboo of our current elitist degenerates.

      I'm not so sure I'm with him on the moon landing conspiracy, but to be honest, I don't care that much, even though I live in the neighborhood of NASA here in Houston. I certainly wouldn't put it past the government to fake something like that as a cold war measure and as a form of (wildly popular and massively influential) domestic propaganda.

    3. Hello, UC! Good to hear from you again.

      I second ATL's recommendation of Owen Benjamin. His stream is great entertainment. (Proceed with caution if you're a short fella. At 6'7", he's a rabid height supremacist.)

    4. Dear ATL, Thank you for the link to Owen Benjamin. I laughed too and will watch more of his comic take on life. I've thought for a while now that women voting has been disastrous for America and would gladly give it up if all women were disenfranchised. As well, I'm convinced that only net taxpaying men should have the vote. Peg in Oregon.

    5. Hey everyone,

      I am aware of Owen (lol). Looking forward to participating in discussion. For some reason previous account is lost, but unlike last time it happened it wasn’t the result of an NAP violation on my car window. Going make new 3.0 account shortly.


    6. "As well, I'm convinced that only net taxpaying men should have the vote."

      Make that: 'only married net taxpaying men with at least 2 children and above the age of 35'... LOL

    7. Peg,

      That would be awful patriotic of you! I don't just think it was a bad idea for women to vote, but anyone who works for the government, or primarily works government contracts, anyone dependent on the state for food, income, housing, or health care, oh yeah, and all men too! The whole democratic revolution was and still is a huge mistake.

      The monarchs of Europe had gotten too powerful and corrupt, true, but the answer wasn't to create a political mechanism by which everyone could be corrupted by power. This has resulted in states much worse and much more powerful and capable than had ever existed under of a monarch in Europe and cultures almost saturated in vice and dependency.

      Rather, the monarchies should have split up. Local nobles should have declared independence and roused the masses under them to defend their exit from the unhealthy union, not to overtake the existing power structure. If several of those in France prior to 1789 would have done this, it would have avoided the French Revolution and all those later democratic movements inspired by it (Communism, Nazism, Fascism). At least, that's my opinion.

      I'm convinced that the conservative impulse when facing intolerable government is to secede, whereas the liberal one is to revolt.

    8. ATL and Rien,

      ATL has a better idea: no one votes.

      I agree with you ATL, there should be no one voting in a public plebiscite, not men or women or anyone else, only “votes” via freely negotiated trade using one’s own resources. Women, who operate on a different worldview to men, have simply served to muddy the waters.

      By saying “net taxpaying men,” I hoped it was evident I intended the exclusion of those dependent on the state for part or all of their sustenance. Indeed, those who work for government aren’t net taxpayers. When they make the claim otherwise, it’s simply a charade. So instead of making rules about whom, where, and how much, as Rien suggests, no votes at all. Just the free marketplace working toward the optimum outcome for all.

      And then there is Switzerland, probably still the best governed country on the globe, although there are cracks in its edifice, not least due to the powerful influence, pressure, and intimidation applied by the U.S. Still, it managed to prevent female voting until 1971, at least in national referendums.

      Thank you both for taking time to contribute so much of interest on Bionic’s blog. I always enjoy reading your comments. Peg in "high-school diplomas for all on request" and "rent-control coming soon," Oregon.

    9. Peg, ATL, I do not want to insult either of you, so I am merely expressing my own feeling in reaction to "no one votes": It is simply a trope. Sounds good, feels good, has no relevance whatsoever. Its is a complete denial of reality.

      We can only achieve freedom if we are willing to give it to each other. And that can only work through action on behalf of each other. Voting can -under certain conditions, which today are not met- be one way of achieving this. The only alternative to voting is violence. What do you prefer?

    10. Dear Rien,
      With all due respect, I suggest we agree to disagree on the concept of voting, particularly as to the way it’s handled in the U.S. today, which realistically can be boiled down to two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for supper. I can’t come to a better system of “voting” other than with our dollars, or perhaps our feet. If that’s not giving liberty to each other, I don’t understand what you can mean. Certainly you’re incorrect about the two choices you offer. After love and affection for others, nothing is more robust than freely chosen trade. Peg in Oregon

    11. "Voting can -under certain conditions, which today are not met- be one way of achieving this. "

      If you're talking about market transactions, as in collectively and dynamically 'voting' with money for how valuable different services (including the provision of law and order) are, I totally agree.

      If you're talking about majority rules, one size fits all, democratic voting, count me out. I'll use voting as a short term self-defense mechanism (voting to reduce spending, taxation, foreign and domestic intervention, secession referendums) while subject to democratic government, but I won't point to it as a long term solution for maintaining liberty.

  2. Seems like an interesting new book. The title seems a play on Richard Duchesne's book "The Uniqueness of western civilization". A book I once started but did not finish.

  3. Indeed, Duchesne wrote the afterword to my book. Good spot.

    1. Hi Richard, is there are relation between your book and propertarianism?