Beyond Conservatism: Reclaiming the Radical Roots of Libertarianism
Copyright 2005. Keith Preston. American Revolutionary Vanguard. All rights reserved.

excerpt:

The demise of the Old Order in Europe and America marked the beginnings of the political divisions of “Left” and “Right” or “liberal” and “conservative”. Rothbard correctly characterized classical Liberalism, the revolutionary ideology of the eighteenth century, as “the party of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the Industrial Revolution, of progress, of humanity” with Conservatism being “the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore the hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom, and class exploitation of the Old Order”. Given that “liberalism admittedly had reason on its side, the Conservatives darkened the ideological atmosphere with obscurantist calls for romanticism, tradition, theocracy, and irrationalism”. No better description has ever been written of modern American conservatism, whether one speaks of the neoconservative con artistry that passes for its “leadership” or the jingoist, pseudo-populist ideology used to rally its grassroots support base. As the antithesis of Conservatism, classical Liberalism was, in Rothbard’s view, “essentially radical and revolutionary”. Liberalism, as described by the great Catholic historian Lord John Acton, “wishes for what ought to be, irrespective of what is.”(7)

If libertarianism has its roots in eighteenth century radical liberalism, how, then, did libertarianism come to be identified with conservatism? As the nineteenth century progressed, classical liberalism largely became the status quo. Like other movements that become corrupted or compromised with the achievement of victory, Liberalism began to lose its radical edge and started accommodating itself to the Establishment. Consequently, the old feudal ruling classes were able to reinvent themselves as a state-capitalist class, subsequently degenerating into neo-mercantilism and “liberal imperialism”.(8) Hence, the rise of the classical Socialist and Communist movements of the nineteenth century as a reaction against the deterioration of Liberalism. Rothbard described this process:

“Into this gap, into this void created by the drying up of radical liberalism, there stepped a new movement: Socialism. Libertarians of the present day are accustomed to think of socialism as the polar opposite of the libertarian creed. But this is a grave mistake responsible for a severe ideological disorientation of libertarians in the present world. As we have seen, Conservatism was the polar opposite of liberty; and socialism, while to the ‘left’ of conservatism, was essentially a confused, middle-of-the-road movement. It was, and still is, middle-of-the-road because it tries to achieve Liberal ends by the use of Conservative means.”

“Socialism, like Liberalism and against Conservatism, accepted the industrial system and the liberal goals of freedom, reason, mobility, progress, higher living standards for the masses, and an end to theocracy and war; but it tried to achieve these ends by the use of incompatible, Conservative means: statism, central planning, communitarianism, etc.”
…

Many of them do it in the misguided belief that this is the start of a political or even intelligence career.

http://exiledonline.com/two-things-to-say-about-ron-pauls-allegedly-awesome-position-on-drugs/

A few of us libertarians have been in jail for biting our girlfriend’s thumbs and breaking our girlfriend’s eye sockets, so we’re the libertarian ones you want to defer to on this issue.

What happened to Justice in the USA?

Not because the elites or the OWS or pretty much anybody – save the total loonies – perticularily want it, but just because the mass has been set in motion and there ain’t no stopping it. People are angry and scared on both sides. The OWS aren’t the scared ones, nor unfortunately are the real elites, but there’s a hell of a lot other ‘folks’ – Mr Nobel Laureate Sugar Daddy O loves to use this word, folks – who are quite bonkers plus scared shitless and they are well armed, to boot. Once the situation really escalates it might just develop into a vicious circle.

One part of the corrupt technocrat culture is, that there is no real leadership. So here’s the scenario: serious social unrest, something actually approaching class war, higly polarized climate of ideology, ethnicity, politics, a broken system with corruption rampant in evert sector, politics, police, military, courts, universities… and NO leadership – even in the self interested, self-preseving sense – ANYWHERE. (I mean in no place of higher authority.)

So would it be so ludricious to suggest two sceanarios: 1) Anarchy – meaning anarchosyndicalism – will rise as an alternative political force to compete with the current system of subhuman scumbaggery, (how nice whould that be!) or then 2) there’ll just be plain anarchy in the sense it’s used in common vernacular, ie. total chaos, and possibly a Egypt-style crackdown by the military.

just think about the planning that went into the lockup, wait, and poor conditions … LAPD had weeks to plan a different response

LAPD could have set up a tented intake station with tables of water-bottles, food, music, etc and slowly walked the peaceful protesters into the jail for processing (there is no reason for those arrested to have been taken to more than one facility) … everything that happened to the arrested protesters was planned … the choice could have been made to treat them civilly, without malice and with dignity

the similarity to police responses all over the US speaks to a national policy

I’m tough. I’ve learned a lot of good fighting tactics online, and if i was going to protest I would use them and say “HEY, COP, you know, that i have these good tactics.. and the cop would surrender his weapons to me and my friends. My friends and me would dress up like cops and go to the white house and say, “HEY, the gold standard.. is really good. and the president would say “Even though I am muslim, I agree,” and he would resign, Ron Paul would be appointed president and they would give us jobs as the new army/cia/richard marcinko secret commando force.
IN closing, be like me “yasha” “levine” and maybe your movement would be serious, like mine, libertarianism. Go libertarianism! The toughest guys online!

Yes, Americans are ‘angry’ but they are angry over not winning their personal lottery ticket. That is not a pre-condition for any type of progressive movement.

If you love the struggle, then go for it. But if you hope to change this country, realistic examination will probably show that it’s futile. We are in dry rot.

(btw the AEC rewriting my comment pissed me off especially as I just donated you guys some $ just 3 days ago. but OK, my comment was not clear and it could have been understood as provocation, so fair enough.)