LIBERTARIANISM AND THE COLLECTIVE

GOOD
VITMAN Tnka
_________________________________
The announcement of this essay contest begins with the following
statement: "In terms of fundamental moral principles, libertarian individualism and racial nationalist collectivism could not be more opposed."
I would like to respond by arguing that the premise underlying
that statement is false, on two counts:
It bears within it an assumption that the libertarian desire to
live unmolested by state power springs from (or leads to) a hedonic conception of citizenship in which the individual does not
have concerns which extend far beyond his or her own comforts.
It bears within it a perhaps less obvious assumption that the
citizens of a society imbued with racial nationalism will not
work for the collective good voluntarily.
Instead, I think it is more instructive to conceive of the degree to
which libertarian principles are embraced within a population as the
context in which groups within that population form or attempt to
form associations, whether based in common racial ancestry or anything else. In brief, the more pervasive and uniformly distributed (more
on this later) a libertarian worldview is among the population, the
lower will be the coefficient of friction in formation and dissolution of
social groups (political, religious, or other) within that population. Essentially, when libertarian principles are operative, there is a more efficient political market, and the niche occupied by political "products"
such as racial nationalist collectivism may more easily be located,
sampled, and embraced or rejected by the individual. Political products that do not develop a self-selected constituency disappear from
the marketplace. Conversely, when libertarian principles are not operative, political products that could be popular are prevented from de-

52

The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 1, Spring 2011

veloping, and political products that aren't truly popular live on indefinitely, because better alternatives are not permitted to develop. Absent a libertarian zeitgeist among the section of society who influence
or control outright the content of public discourse, a distorted marketplace for political thought is always observed.
Below, I'll begin by clarifying my understanding of libertarian individualism and racial nationalist collectivism. Next, I'll offer an example (albeit an imperfect one) to support the foregoing point of
view. Then, I'll speculate on why many racial nationalists arrive at
their positions after a period of exposure to libertarian philosophy.
Finally, I'll close with a few thoughts about the near-term interactions
of libertarianism and racial nationalism in the politics of the Tea Party
movement in the United States.
First, the terms of debate:
Libertarian individualism is a philosophical position that may be reduced to one sentence: The individual is free to think, speak and act as
he sees fit, subject to the constraint that he does not use his freedom to
forcibly deprive others of this same privilege. Note that there is nothing in that statement which militates against use of one's freedom to
collaborate voluntarily with others in pursuit of commonly desired
ends.
Racial nationalist collectivism is a term that is new to me, in that I only recently discovered The Occidental Quarterly and related sites.
Hence, my conception of its meaning may depart from the editor's or
the reader's. Within the term, the word nationalist is the point of focus. I take the word as a description of one who holds a profound
sense of attachment to a racially defined ingroup, whether there are
any overt political or territorial manifestations of that attachment or
not. Obviously, a racial nationalist feels that sort of attachment to his
co-ethnics, and collectivism within that group describes pooling of resources in pursuit of optimized outcomes for the group rather than an
individual within it.
Now, on to the example. Although they are not self-identified racial
nationalists, consider the Amish. They are a very racially homogenous
population. They live according to a code of behavior that is their
own, and are substantially free to do so because they have a unique
"hands-off" relationship with the government. Amish settlements may
come and go as their numbers grow or diminish, which they do based
on how attractive the way of life they offer is to their memberships.
Four key observations:

Tnka: Libertarianism and the Common Good

53

Their way of life is possible because they are not forced into
some activities (e.g. participation in the Social Security system,
forced busing, diversity training) that are forced upon the rest of
us. Hence, their ability to sustain the social organization of their
choosing derives at least partly from an experience of American
society that is characterized by more freedom than is typical for
most other citizens.
Their approach to life within their settlements is significantly
collectivist.
Once they reach the age of majority, young Amish men and
women may choose to stay or go after sampling the wider
world. Most stay.
Their numbers are increasing at a fairly rapid clip. Their freedom to exert an extra measure of control over their lives as a
group seems to be correlated with greater fecundity than is evident in any other European-derived population.
Thus, collectivism within a racially homogenous population is comfortably integrated with freedom to decide whether or not to partake
of it. It appears to be attractive, once experienced, because coercion is
not required to maintain it. As a socio-political "product", the Amish
way of life is flourishing in the marketplace of ideas. Moreover, it is
doing so even as the larger society based on competing organizing
principles (outsourcing, offshoring, open borders, debt-driven economics, etc.) unravels. Thus, we may safely conclude that it is not parasitic in any obvious way.
Next, to the question of why many racial nationalists have a period
of libertarianism in their backgrounds. For starters, we should bear in
mind that we are all operating in a distorted marketplace of sociopolitical ideas in which some thoughts are more acceptable than others, and that most of us have a need to have social ties to others or at
least avoid ostracism. Given that, the first attraction of many young
adults to libertarian philosophy is easily understandable. It offers a
socially acceptable step in the right direction for people who chafe at the
myriad ways in which their ability to produce or dispose of resources

54

The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 1, Spring 2011

is constrained. It is important to remember that it does not offer any

prescription concerning how that discretion will be exercised.
However, a few years of orientation to that vein of thought, combined with observation of where the United States is headed demographically and in terms of the invasive application of state power
will trigger three follow-on thoughts:
"If I had a great deal of freedom, what would I actually do with
it? I would exercise it to enjoy association with and to aid people
with whom I feel a kind of kinship, because humans are social
beings. I would try to re-create the kind of high-trust society I
took for granted as a child. The people with whom I believe I can
establish that high-trust community tend to of my own race, as
most people gravitate to their own kind."
"The fact is, I don't have that freedom, and there is little likelihood that I ever will unless American society changes drastically, because other groups within it view people of my kind as a
resource to be tapped (to fight wars, to fund transfer payments
in perpetuity to dysfunctional sub-populations of other races, to
make the trains run on time, etc.). Hence, we can't be allowed to
go our own way."
"In a multi-racial society in which the libertarian aversion to
exploitation of one's fellow man is not evenly distributed across
the races, political action motivated by the libertarian impulse
among the race of people in which it is most salient is akin to
unilateral disarmament. But, I still have the objective expressed
in the first thought. So, is racial nationalism a philosophy I can
layer over the libertarian impulse to behave more adaptively in a
non-libertarian society?"
I believe the libertarian urge is not supplanted by racial nationalist
collectivism, but only recognized as impracticable given the political
context in which White Americans find themselves. Very few White
racial nationalists would begrudge any other race a place on which to
pursue their version of happiness, so long as that race doesn't interfere
with pursuit of happiness on the soil the White racial nationalist occupies. And there's the rub: a nation as a political entity or other-

Tnka: Libertarianism and the Common Good

55

wise has to exist in a place.

The ideals overtly embraced by the Amish are considered acceptable within our imperfect political marketplace. So, the Amish are allowed a place (actually, many places), and they flourish because of it.
The ideals embraced by White racial nationalists are not considered
acceptable, so they are denied a place. White racial nationalists will
probably not be allowed a place unless/until American society breaks
down to such an extent that they cannot be prevented from occupying
a place informally. For the reason cited in the second bullet point
above, if racial consciousness re-emerges on a large scale among European-Americans, and they then separate themselves from others geographically and financially, American society as we know it will
cease to function. Consequently, emergence of that consciousness will
be fought overtly and covertly from the bottom and top of society, as
those sections have the most to lose if the status quo dissolves.
Finally, we turn our attention to the interplay of libertarianism, racial nationalism and the Tea Party movement. Much has been said
about how the Tea Partiers are overwhelmingly White, but that they
insist they are not a White movement. In fact, the Tea Partiers are correct regarding their means, but consciously or unconsciously disingenuous regarding the ends.
What Tea Partiers want is a much less invasive, controlling and
spendthrift government for everyone. In that sense, they are libertarian and truly are racially agnostic. However, they want these things
so that they and people like them may flourish as fully as their abilities allow effectively decoupling their futures from the futures of
those who oppose them. If the libertarian realignment they seek
comes to pass, their ability to act collectively to create and maintain
healthy environments will far exceed that of the non-White American
population that doesn't attend these rallies. So, the Tea Partiers are using non-racial means to achieve what is ultimately racial preservation.
Both sides know it, at least instinctively. Neither will dare say it.
I'm sure the conversation would be interesting if the Tea Partiers
and the politicians and activists who denigrate them engaged in an
honest dialogue about why small government and an end to income
redistribution are bad for non-White Americans bad today, bad
tomorrow, bad forever. There is an underlying admission on the part
of the anti-Tea Party phalanx that they need the European-American
backbone of this country to survive in the style to which they've become accustomed. This is true at both the top and the bottom of socie-

56

The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 11, no. 1, Spring 2011

ty. There is no reciprocal dependency originating in the Tea Party

membership. If only the rank and file fully realized it and had the
nerve to say so.
Vitman Tnka is the pseudonym of a systems analyst and a dabbler in many
other trades, living in flyover country, USA