Liberalism as Anarcho-Tyranny
-
The Doctrine of Liberalism, as is well known, affirms primarily that individual autonomy is the greatest social good, with government being charged to effect this autonomy as its primary end. This is what liberalism means by freedom, both positive and negative. Likewise in promoting this end t,he ideology of liberalism affirms subsidiary dogmas such as equality, tolerance, and non-discrimination that support and ultimately lead too greater personal autonomy. To many these principles superficially seem good, after-all when many hear words such as "non-discrimination" they are told by the liberal that this means liberation from arbitrariness and government tyranny. Yet as we will show, the ultimate outcome of liberal ideology is anything but such liberation, and rather liberal atomistic individualism leads instead, as presaged by Plato in his work on the democratic man, to tyranny, oppression, and the subversion of law and order. We call this, anarcho-tyranny.
Tyranny proceeds from liberalism, precisely because Liberal communities have no legitimate majorities since to the liberal, communities are merely collections of individual human wills, individualistically defined and atomised with no binding relations to others. The Liberal sees communities in this way because it ultimately seeks the maximum of individual autonomy, and thus cannot see community as binding on the agency of its members. Considering this, the logical outcomeis that two principles of government all right thinking men take for granted no longer apply: firstly consent of the governed, and second rule by majority. For if non-discrimination, tolerance and the individuals right to unfettered autonomy are affirmed as they are in liberalism, than the majority can have no claim to impose rules and order that bind members in its society. Likewise a liberal elite in honestly fulfilling its doctrine cannot hold themselves to the standard and judgement of the same majority, since ultimately it is the end of individual autonomy, and the liberation of the individual will that is their sole objective standard.
This is a profoundly troubling aspect of liberal ideology, and we would attest obviously true. Indeed its just a logical progression of liberal ideology in that since liberalism says that only the individual and his desires matter, liberalism denies as a consequence the legitimacy of the nation and its majority culture. But now we see also that liberalism denies the legitimacy of political majorities as well as of cultural majorities. Or, in other terms A majority party can rule so long as it affirms there is no majority."
This is clearly evident in Uruguay and in Chile, where liberals are with all haste attempting to impose their ideology without any reference to majority rule, or to the consent of the governed. In the case of Uruguay, it is observed and proven fact that the liberal party rigged the vote and engaged in widespread electoral fraud in order to obtain and maintain its power, showing the greatest possible contempt for the will of the majority, and definitely showing that to the liberal the exaltation of individual will and the doctrines of liberalism is all that matters. In Chile too, the liberal party has effectively bought its way into office through the inflow of foreign liberal funds, subverting the process of the electoral polity. It too has rampantly engaged in the dismantling of the patrimony of the nations past, and of its binding communal institutions (which represent a binding contract of values) in a hamfisted pursuit of ideological ends, without respect of, or reference too, the will of the majority of Chileans.
These examples show that the ultimate trajectory of a liberal polity is towards an unrepresentative and tyrannical bureaucratic state. After all, since only the individual and his will matter, and all individual wills are of equal value, no majority of individual wills can be allowed to force its will on any minority of individual wills according to the liberal. Therefore any given society cannot be ruled on the basis of the consent of the majority, also known as the consent of the governed if liberalism is taken to its logical terminus. Thus to an honest liberal, society must be run by an unrepresentative instrumentality that is independent of the governed, in order to protect the equality of all individual wills, with consent of the governed and majority rule being dismissed.
This is ultimately gravely harmful for society, since it denies all those things which people need in order to live well. It subverts the concept of community and social order, since it denies that the community has claims to the conduct of its members (since liberalism upholds the individual will as paramount), it rejects absolutely any objective truth and moral order, referring only to a gnostic proposition of man being his own God, with morality proceeding entirely from his own auto-determined whim. This leads ultimately to mob-rule, and to the destruction of law and order (save in regards to dissenters against liberalism) as due punishments established in law to ensure the tranquillity of society are progressively lessened under liberalism, as the liberal state cannot deign the imposition of the communal will on the will of an individual (upholding individual autonomy as the greatest social good), namely the criminal being punished. It is thus no surprise that where liberalism reigns as in parts of the Confederation of Continental States, anarchist terror and blatant disorder are rampant, and the bonds which bind society are frayed and weak.
We see therefore that anarcho-tyranny is the systematic refusal to enforce the law in the most serious and essential matters, such as the protection of citizens from physical violence, combined with the assiduous enforcement of intrusive regulations in the most trivial and specious matters, such as the policing of peoples thoughts and feelings about minorities, or other protected groups. Manifestations of such policies include the suppression of non-proletarist ideology in proletarist states, and the censorship of Catholic works criticising Protestantism in certain liberal countries for fear of "offence".
Considering all this, it is clear that liberalism is firstly, undemocratic and tyrannical in its ultimate trajectory (being in the modern era radically removed from its original manifestation). It is clear also that it dismisses such basic concepts as majority rule and consent of the governed, with this disdain being clear in liberal actions in Latin America, and elsewhere. Likewise it is clear that liberalism destroys the bonds of the community, resulting in the degradation of law and order and the imposition of egregious laws in a vain bid to exalt individual autonomy over the common good. Observing the horrifying end that this modern ideological and spiritual decay will lead too, we thus consider it the duty of all right-thinking men and women to oppose liberal anarcho-tyranny in order not only to protect the objective goods they value, but also to protect the peace and serenity of society, and the liberty of all citizens of the commonweal.
-
~Professor Jose Vazquez, Doctor of Philosophy at the Pontifical Catholic University of Montevideo.