>>20182>>20144>a "radical" libertarian desperately trying to find a way out of your ideology's failures by cherry-picking everything that has come from the Age of Enlightenment, and rejecting the rest. I don't call myself libertarian. In my experience, most libertarians have no special taste for monarchy, other than maybe something like the British model, for obvious reasons. I do respond positively to the libertarian commitment to free markets and private property, but without a hereditary monarchy or nobility whose rights are protected by the same principles of private property and who acquire authority by appeal to something higher than humanity or material wealth, I don't see how the capitalist/merchant class can be checked so as to prevent its more nefarious elements from establishing some kind of oligarchy of their own. Like with communism, human nature often presents a stumbling block for most utopian dreams and while anarcho-capitalists and libertarians strike me as more realistic in their acceptance of the reality of human evil as far as communism is concerned, they downplay or don't realize the potential abuse of their own systems which while perhaps potentially less destructive than communism has proven to be, still presents a very serious potential danger. After all, it was capitalist money which helped make the Bolshevik Revolution possible in the first place and even today, places like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which many would consider a prime example of the evils of monarchy in the modern era (and it is definitely one of the worst) are in fact heavily supported by the supposedly free democratic capitalist nations of the world, which is how they get away with so much.
The libertarian argument is usually something like "well, if we had more of a free market this kind of stuff wouldn't happen as much," but what if some people just want to use the free market to get the power they desire and once they get it use that power to control or destroy the free market? Somebody has to check those people while making sure the markets have a great amount of freedom. Monarchies were usually pretty good at that, which is why the merchant classes often supported those movements which would reduce the monarchs power over them (like democracy) but not necessarily reduce their own ability to control the peasants who would migrate to the cities to fill out the ranks of the industrial labor in their factories. Look at the wealthiest people in the world today, most of them aren't descended from traditional aristocracy. Heck, many of them have been Jews, the most cursed people in traditional Christian (and Muslim) society.
Libertarians still cling to a lot of ideas of classical liberalism, which while admirable in some ways, I still think have proven to be very dangerous in the long run.
>Like someone who actually wants to be a serfThat's funny cause many anarcho-socialists and anarcho-communists sound like they actually want to be peasants. Nothing wrong with that though. Peasant life really wasn't that bad when compared to the conditions of later industrial workers and the former probably had more control over their own lives than the latter.
