/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16726076]

What exactly is he? A libertarian? An ancap? A monarchist? A neo-reactionary?

[Anonymous No.16726093]

>>16726076
yes

[Anonymous No.16726094]

>>16726076
Racist

[Anonymous No.16726095]

>>16726076
Fat fuck

[Anonymous No.16726099]

>>16726076
>What exactly is he?
a jew. not even memeing when I say that little biological fact gives you an exhaustive explanation for every neurotic slogan he peddles.

[Anonymous No.16726102]

>>16726076
an ugly motherfucker

[Anonymous No.16726109]

He's Ed from Northern Exposure

[Anonymous No.16726123]

>>16726076
>monarchist
it is closest to that I guess but it's sort of memes

[Anonymous No.16726128]

>>16726123
>but it's sort of memes
based?

[Anonymous No.16726138]

>>16726128
I guess he gets points for making up his own ideologies at least

[Anonymous No.16726151]

He's a fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.16726157]

libertarian autocrat, i would say.

[Anonymous No.16726166]

all of them at the same time
he thinks that the current form of state should be abolished in favour of creating a privately owned, ceo runned pseudo monarchy
>ancap because no state
>monarchist because the ceo would be the equivalent of the kang
>libertarian because everything is privatized
>neo-reactionary because pseudo kang anti-liberal

[Anonymous No.16726182]

This is an important question. Moldbug addresses it here:
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2010/02/from-mises-to-carlyle-my-sick-journey/

>I don’t think I’ve read everything Mises ever wrote, but I certainly have Theory and History, Omnipotent Government, and other less-trafficked Misesia, on my shelves. My gaps in Rothbard studies are more pronounced—for instance, I have never read the History of Economic Thought. Nonetheless, I have been through Mises and Rothbard more or less from ass to elbow, and my judgment on the two remains unchanged. Mises is a titan; Rothbard is a giant.

>Carlyle is the greatest of all, however, because his vision is the broadest. The analytic power of Mises is much greater; when Mises and Carlyle disagree, Mises is usually right. Mises is almost never wrong. No one could possibly describe Carlyle as “almost never wrong.” Carlyle is frequently wrong. His strokes are big. He excavates with a pick, not a dental drill. But there is really nothing in Mises’ philosophy that is not in Carlyle; and the converse is not the case.

>The problem with Mises as guru is that Misesian classical liberalism (or Rothbardian libertarianism) is like Newtonian physics. It is basically correct within its operating envelope. Under unusual conditions it breaks down, and a more general model is needed. The equation has another term, the ordinary value of which is zero. Without this term, the equation is wrong. Normally this is no problem; but if the term is not zero, the error becomes visible.

>Just as Newtonian rules only make sense at low speeds, Misesian rules only make sense in a secure order. Mises himself once wished for a praxeology of war, which is fairly good evidence that he didn’t have one. Carlyle was not a place he would have looked. Carlyle was taken—Carlyle, the statist, the royalist fascist and the royalist progressive, was the prophet of those (on both sides of the Atlantic) who had no place for Mises. To say the least!

>Einstein once said: a theory should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. As a Carlylean libertarian, I would say: government should be as small as possible, but no smaller.