Sinai Strategy
http://www.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/2102_47e.htm
Failure of the American Baptist Culture
http://www.commentary.net/freebooks/docs/21ce_47e.htm
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
Beh, under Calivinist theonomy the non-elect aren't bound by the Bible anyways; if North wants to set up his little theocracy where women are stoned and doesn't insist on co-opting non-Calvinists into it I don't really care. He's certainly a strange person, but practically every libertarian is a nutjob of some sort or another.
And 'anti-authoritarianism' is crap. Property is authoritarian. Libertarianism is not about being against 'authority' or about being for 'freedom', both of which are bogus words used for rhetorical puposes by all political stripes. Libertarianism is about a specific concept of law and property norms and social organization by indirect coordination and contract.
And what does Scott mean, 'ally'? Seriously, what does he think he, or North, are accomplishing? They're both scribblers ignored by nearly the entire world and surrounded by leftists who hate their ideas; and North is a lot better of an economist.
Ricky James Moore II: I like how you defended him/ignored it.Makes me so confident in An-caps,Mises.org and lew rockwell.com ! " and doesn't insist on co-opting non-Calvinists into it I don't really care. " No he does doesn't say it only applies to calvinists.He was it enforced by the state.Don't you dare,defend him. " but practically every libertarian is a nutjob of some sort or another." 99.9% do not defend theocracy. "And 'anti-authoritarianism' is crap. " Ok.But don't call yourself anarchist or libertarian. "Property is authoritarian." Exactly.Hence the anarchist/libertarian opposition to it.Property is not ownership. "Libertarianism is not about being against 'authority' or about being for 'freedom'," Here we go.Ahistoricism again.This is reason #1000204 (slight exaggeration) why I do not wish to frequent these forums or Mises.org anymore.It's full of bullshit that only An-caps make up.Face it An-cap has nothing in common with any sort of anarchism throughout history and libertarians are abusing that work. " and North is a lot better of an economist." because he fits capitalists apologetics.I see.
I like how you defended him/ignored it.Makes me so confident in An-caps,Mises.org and lew rockwell.com !
" and doesn't insist on co-opting non-Calvinists into it I don't really care. "
No he does doesn't say it only applies to calvinists.He was it enforced by the state.Don't you dare,defend him.
" but practically every libertarian is a nutjob of some sort or another."
99.9% do not defend theocracy.
"And 'anti-authoritarianism' is crap. "
Ok.But don't call yourself anarchist or libertarian.
"Property is authoritarian."
Exactly.Hence the anarchist/libertarian opposition to it.Property is not ownership.
"Libertarianism is not about being against 'authority' or about being for 'freedom',"
Here we go.Ahistoricism again.This is reason #1000204 (slight exaggeration) why I do not wish to frequent these forums or Mises.org anymore.It's full of bullshit that only An-caps make up.Face it An-cap has nothing in common with any sort of anarchism throughout history and libertarians are abusing that work.
" and North is a lot better of an economist."
because he fits capitalists apologetics.I see.
*Shrugs* I said it conditionally. It's not like it matters, no one gives a flying frick about Gary North's opinions except for libertarians and right-wing Calvinists; who are politically irrelevant.
*Eyes commence to rolling*
why I do not wish to frequent these forums or Mises.org anymore.
Don't expect me to weep.
Face it An-cap has nothing in common with any sort of anarchism throughout history
I really don't give a damn about this stupid semantic argument, most anarchists are retards and kooks. I'm about property and contract law, whether this fits your leftoidal intellectual masturbation as to what 'anarchism' is doesn't matter to me in the least.
i.e., he is not an idiot and understands economics.
Oh, and just to troll you, John D. Rockefeller, Sr. is the greatest American in history.
Theocrat Gary North: No ally of mine. How about a co-belligerent, then?
Theocrat Gary North: No ally of mine.
Also, there is no such thing as a 'paleo-libertarian'. That was a moniker Lew used to distance himself from the multicultis at Cato, just like 'right' libertarian, it doesn't actually mean anything; it's really just in opposition to the 'not libertarians' such as liberventionists, state efficiency experts and leftoidal pseudolibertarians.
Scott,
Those quotes are definitely of the insane kind, so thanks for pointing them out. It was writting 25 years ago so he may have changed his ideas. But if he hasn't openly/clearly done so then I would want to have nothing to do with that guy.
I keep wondering from time to time if the religious strands in the ancap/Austrian movement need to be addressed more publicly.
I don't really see the point. There are a lot of people who are useful to libertarians that are weirdos. Buchanan is a protectionist white nationalist, David Irving is a Gemanophile, Gabriel Kolko is a neo-Marxist, FJP Veale was a fascist, Thomas Sowell is a NeoCon.
I'm obviously not anyone who has any high opinion of religion, but to me it's all pretty moot. Anyone who can think can tell the difference between libertarianism and theocracy, and if they can't - who cares? Good riddance.
Nielsio: But if he hasn't openly/clearly done so then I would want to have nothing to do with that guy.
But if he hasn't openly/clearly done so then I would want to have nothing to do with that guy.
Not to my knowledge.He hasn't publicly distanced himself from them. Know how he links to garynorth.com under his articles at lew rockwell.com? well if you follow that then click gary north's free books then http://GaryNorth.com/freebooks then get to http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/pagetwo.htm then click on
The main area links you to the selection of books from which I displayed above.
So he hasn't repudiated his old views or if he has, doesn't consider them terrible enough to get rid of those links and publicly reject them.
Oh or to save all that linking see here - http://www.garynorth.com/public/department57.cfm
Ricky James Moore II: Anyone who can think can tell the difference between libertarianism and theocracy, and if they can't - who cares? Good riddance.
Anyone who can think can tell the difference between libertarianism and theocracy, and if they can't - who cares? Good riddance.
That applies to Gary North then!
Ricky James Moore II: "Also, there is no such thing as a 'paleo-libertarian" Just because Lew Rockwell does not use it for himself does not mean it has no meaning. "That was a moniker Lew used to distance himself from the multicultis at Cato, just like 'right' libertarian," They mean what they've always meant.Culturally conservative libertarian. "leftoidal pseudolibertarians." I'm not going to go into great detail on this but do some search and stop this nonsense.Libertarianism(the mainly US philosophy coming from classical liberalism and in the original correct use of the word by anarchist socialists) has always been left wing
"Also, there is no such thing as a 'paleo-libertarian"
Just because Lew Rockwell does not use it for himself does not mean it has no meaning.
"That was a moniker Lew used to distance himself from the multicultis at Cato, just like 'right' libertarian,"
They mean what they've always meant.Culturally conservative libertarian.
"leftoidal pseudolibertarians."
I'm not going to go into great detail on this but do some search and stop this nonsense.Libertarianism(the mainly US philosophy coming from classical liberalism and in the original correct use of the word by anarchist socialists) has always been left wing
I am not going to argue with you about etymology; what I mean by libertarian is propertarian-contractarian; like Anthony de Jasay or Jan Narveson. I could give two cents and a whistle about all this mystical BS about equality, freedom, yadda yadda yadda. It's just so much hot air.
You can use it to mean Crypto-Georgist-Anarcho-Situationist-Communo-Freeholderism; I'll use it to mean something legal and not moralistic or culturally fetishistic. Classical liberalism, Quakers and all those other Christian heresies are nonsense as are all the leftist fantasy millenialisms built on them.
Maybe North is a libertarian and maybe he isn't, I don't really care. I read him for his economic analysis, not for his Calvinist crackpottery.
Ricky James Moore II: I'm obviously not anyone who has any high opinion of religion, but to me it's all pretty moot. Anyone who can think can tell the difference between libertarianism and theocracy, and if they can't - who cares? Good riddance.
Coming from a guy who made a thread trying to discuss how unlibertarian religion is... Are you now saying it's irrelevant?
Okay, almost every one of you is arguing with some imaginary version of what I said. What I said is that libertarianism is not inherent to any religion because religions are just slapdash collections of cultural and volk norms, none of which are consistently libertarian. Anyways, you guys were being Goddamn ridiculous and I am not having this stupid argument with you.
I don't know any other libertarian who finds Irving or this FJP Veale guy useful.
This is why Lew Rockwell's Web site is so irritating. On the one hand, you will get solid libertarian commentary and on the other you'll get some Suzanne Somersish level of vaccine skepticism or Laurence Vance or Kramer talking about RFID chips or Gary North pining for Christian theocracy. I read today an article that denied Einstein's theory of relativity in favor of Newtonian mechanics. I mean, really.
His site certainly appeals to the populist libertarian front. Mises at least puts up an aura of respectability.
Anyway, thanks for the links. When a poster (can't remember which) first pointed out that North was a Calvinist theocrat, I was less than surprised. I did read his Wiki page a long time ago and assumed he was just another paleolibertarian, but after that post prompted me to look at "Christian reconstructionism" I can't figure out what his affiliation with Rockwell even is. Is Lew a religious fundamentalist too?
Eric080: This is why Lew Rockwell's Web site is so irritating. On the one hand, you will get solid libertarian commentary and on the other you'll get some Suzanne Somersish level of vaccine skepticism or Laurence Vance or Kramer talking about RFID chips or Gary North pining for Christian theocracy. I read today an article that denied Einstein's theory of relativity in favor of Newtonian mechanics. I mean, really.
It's good to be skeptical. Your examples don't show why there is a problem, only religion is a problem as it is the opposite of skepticism.
Ally, what? Ally for what? The dude is either correct, incorrect, or doing pointless speculating about reality on a plethora of issues. What are you on about?
You mean, aside from James J. Martin, the best libertarian historical revisionist ever?
I've known North was a theonomist for a long time, I've read a bunch of the stuff on his website. The guy is obviously an Ultracalvinist; though of the right-wing sort.
Ricky, it seems like a double standard. Unprincipled right-wing guys are 'useful', while left-wing people are 'idiots'.
The fact remains that if you are unprincipled, 'useful' is a synonym for rhetorical and nothing else.
If people don't grasp sound methodology -- which Gary North does not -- they are just rhetoricians. The same as Ronald Reagan saying that 'government is a problem'. And likewise,their rhetoric is not useful to people who are principled and will inevitably see that their methodology is weak. The same as a preposterous scientific theory cannot stand on 'interesting rhetoric'.
You are burying your head in the sand in the hopes that nihilism will save us from this point.
-
On the subject of authortarianism, I think you have it the wrong way. Authoritarianism is nonsense not because property is authority, but because no one can possibly have the preference -- universalizable -- of authority. Since all authorities hate authority or exhaust the limits of a chain of authority somewhere along the line. Hence anarchism is a fact, rather than a 'want'. And authoritarians are those who deny the fact of anarchism and create the physical force of statism from fantasy. And authoritarianism is both the physical force (weak) and majoritarian ideology (strong) which maintains this situation. And no such natural authority or archon can exist a priori except the individual's self-ownership. Even property can be destroyed and no magic capitalist God will intervene because it breaks a law of the universe. It is only that no one has the 'right' to do anything like this, as a matter of logic. Since any such right is imaginary.
the Problem of Gary North is that he doesn't just want his own small area or even his own little house or property. He claims to want the whole US. He wants Christianity to monopolize it and to use its constitution through political action. This why it is foolish to take the nihilistic 'isn't that cute -- he just wants his own nutty cult out in the woods -- fine by me' which many people delude themselves into believing once they grimace at his actual beliefs and don't know how to rationally admit their mistake and repudiate what they thought was a libertarian person. The fact remains that people -- and anarchists at that -- live in the US. I live in the US. And he has no right to move people to start his mass cult in the US. There is no belief, propertarian or otherwise, that he is entitled to an arbitrary landmass. Anymore than say McCain or Barack Obama are, even with the rationalization that they own property in the US. Hence there is no rationalization for him being any type of libertarian. This is on top of him screaming throughout all of his works that he isn't libertarian and Christianity isn't libertarian. Which apparently people ignore in favor of what they want to believe.
Eric080: This is why Lew Rockwell's Web site is so irritating. On the one hand, you will get solid libertarian commentary and on the other you'll get some Suzanne Somersish level of vaccine skepticism or Laurence Vance or Kramer talking about RFID chips or Gary North pining for Christian theocracy. I read today an article that denied Einstein's theory of relativity in favor of Newtonian mechanics. I mean, really. His site certainly appeals to the populist libertarian front. Mises at least puts up an aura of respectability. Anyway, thanks for the links. When a poster (can't remember which) first pointed out that North was a Calvinist theocrat, I was less than surprised. I did read his Wiki page a long time ago and assumed he was just another paleolibertarian, but after that post prompted me to look at "Christian reconstructionism" I can't figure out what his affiliation with Rockwell even is. Is Lew a religious fundamentalist too?
I agree and it turns people(statists, non misean/austro libertarians ,non An-cap libertarians and anarchists) off.
And to list more 'horrors' I've seen :- AIDS denialism,anti-evolutionism,Intelligent Design,conspiracy theories galore,survivalist world is going to end soon talk, bigotry, slamming of modern or culturally liberal views (and I'm not even talking anything far out there just average stuff) Etc.I would probably come up with more.There's been other threads about this.
I understand the whole seeking the other point of view.But there's a mean between orthodox popular opinion cliches and rightwing crackjobs.
John Ess: you've same some pretty intelligent stuff there.I agree with you on the North stuff.
The article trying to discredit relativity is really lame.
That's because left-wingers, aside from Gabriel Kolko and Glenn Greenwald, are idiots. They're cranks and morons whose insane religious views are far more detached from reality than any kind of Divine Right monarchist ever was. The right is stupid and identarian, but the left is absolutely insane.
Gary North actually understands economics, and has some comprehension of the history of American political movements; which is more than I can say for the various wankers calling themselves 'mutualists'. Also, right-wingers are of negligible influence while the left-wing psychos rule the world.
Speaking of Theonomists with something to say, North's late father in law Rushdoony had some interesting lectures on American history and economics; he seems to have been influenced by LeFevre among others:
Rushdoony on Mercantalism, etc.
Universalizability is a Kantian myth, it's useless and entails nothing; sorry, Hoppe, Molyneux, etc. Anyways, it's idiotic to claim that everyone wants authority, you know some people do think other people ought to have authority over things they do not?! I don't want to run PepsiCo, I couldn't if I tried; so there goes your little fantasy. You leftos with your apologetics are absurd, you're like Baptists with evolution.
I guess I don't value "respectability" much, and I think LRC makes for interesting reading. Take some of it with a grain of salt. But why does it appeal to libertarians and ancaps? It seems to me they are inclined to question authority, which LRC's articles on TEOTWAWKI, alt. medicines, alt. science, solar theories of climate, etc. are all about. At least that's why I'm attracted to it. I don't trust authorities, whether they be gov. or scientific. I know enough about the modern "scientific process" to see its links with the political-corporate process. When the top science mags run editorials on politics and former pres. candidates lead "scientific" movements and gov. builds alliances with the health care/big-pharma industries, I can't help but be skeptical. This doesn't mean I reject Einstein or AGW outright, but it does mean I'm not afraid to read an alternative view. I may even be interested in one. Add to that my Kuhnian view of science, and I guess I'm a sucker for "crackpots."
I'm just saying on the one hand, Gary North is not an anarchist and can never be justified as one. I noticed you tried to sneak in a lazy apologetics for him; which is one that he would refuse. Which tells me your apologetics is only for own conscience as a North supporter, rather than a maintainable point. And two, anyone -- left or otherwise -- is capable of making points. Regardless of reading preference, frame of reference, or confirmation bias. To dismiss the left simply because of your emotions regarding them is nonsense. Hence the double standard: right-wing guys can make glaring errors in their judgment and still be 'useful', while left-wing are retards. The logical position, however, would be to take both with a grain of salt. Or else admit your own blindspots and illogic.
Your statement about universalizability is not even a refutation. It's just another dismissal. Sorry, but you seem to dismiss many things without argument simply by attaching adjectives to it. Or making illogical equivications: ie Kant with creationism. To carry your argument to its full conclusion, 6 apples would be a different number than 6 oranges. When I speak of universalizability I'm talking coherent logic rather than a positive basis for morality like Kant. (Hoppe is closer to Habermas, while Molyneux's is rather a negative basis). But if one believes in or makes a moral argument (a big if), it must at the very least have logical rules built in or else it is a contradiction in terms and only their own opinion or jibberish. Which is frankly worthless and can hardly be considered for ethics. The latter of which is the intent of moralizing, whether or not it goes anywhere.
It seems to me left wing guys are the ones for evolution, while all your right-wing buddies are stuck on Baptism and creationism. If Baptism's position on evolution is wrong in your opinion, it would seem you would stop supporting right-wing lunes. Also, your position is equivalent to the non-sequitur among leftists that multinationals rule the planet. It would seem that nihilist such as yourself would see no problem people using any means necessary to rule. In addition, eschewing any such morality as a reason for them being wrong. Without 'myths' like morality, all there is is emotion and aesthetics after all. And the belief that people should 'rule the world' is compatible with your belief system. Since in a system of property some would hold more power than others. Are you prepared to say you disfavor power inequality now? Will you dismiss science in the future propertarian world based on polylogism in favor of the 'little guy'? Largely the left has a monopoly on science and thinking, because the right doesn't do much thinking. They are only correct in matters wherein they can escape current paradigms which seem to be off track, given their distance from 'credibility'. Which is very few subjects (economics and not much else).
I didn't say everyone wants authority. I said that none can hold the preference for authority in the abstract sense since it is impossible in the way they imagine it to be (so it is impossible as a description of reality, though it is maintained as an ideology nonetheless... similar to *ahem* creationism). For instance, that authority is necessary a priori for efficiency or to prevent undesirable 'anarchy' (which I take as the definition of authoritarian: consequentialist and moral, respectively). Authoritarian is one with a preference for an authority apart from a fact about authority; also appealing to a non-existent right. It can have nothing to do with a contract or property: both of which require universalization in order to say that any and all people have an equal reference in contract (no matter what the terms, both people's terms must be realizable equally). At least at the human level, it must apply to all equally and in the same manner. Whatever the results, it is egalitarian in one sense: extending the 'franchise' to all which is human. And not just Asian people or guys named 'Jimmy' or people in green jumpsuits. The authoritarian believes that there is something up and above the two or more signers of the contract: their ideology and preference for force. So there is both a justification of the 'green jumpsuit' morality (the army) as well as a belief that this is a condition for contracts themselves. Which is different than even a contractarian dogma, since contractarianism requires no 'principle' of authority a priori. Since contracts must be non-existent and as well as breakable when necessary, not a Platonic ideal of which contracts exist in the nether world. The principle, if we can call it that, is only that there is no right to prevent such contracts (though as free agents, people also don't have the right to prevent a refusal). This is why there is a distinction between authoritarian and some semantic thing called 'authority' which means something different.
Hence, their beliefs about arbitrary distinctions and 'will' in a democracy or some other type of state (which also exists in the private sphere in the form of violent predation and people with entitlement issues). People who are for the nation state, for instance, are just for an anarchy between nations. And those for world government are stuck when and if there is such a monopoly that will have nothing as an authority over it. Those who are for men over women are both making a baseless claim to 'rights' and also are forgetting that no such authority will be over the man. (whatever other justification for patriarchy, this cannot be one of them: hence it must resort to superstition for its claim. Hence it is not compatible with a rational apologetic). Hence, North's Christian patriarchy is as baseless as a 'right to healthcare'; it is a mainly right-wing (male) sense of entitlement. Christianity says that Christians have a right to other people submitting to Christian ethics, when no such right exists. They are simply making arbitrary categories and an arbitrary claim called 'a right' to do this or that: punish sinners, move non-Christians, have marriage arrangements, etc. Which they claim is sacred and inviolable. But no such right or privilege exists.
In short, there are two facts of existence which the authoritarian denies: competition and anarchy/uncertainty. I think they get the third fact -- the tautology 'humans are humans' -- and appeal to it, but don't take it to its logical extension because of an ideological blindspot. Which I assume is one way of combatting authoritarianism: with their own assumptions.
I dismiss many things because I don't consider them worth debating; this may not be convincing to you but I can deal with that. I mainly address people who are already two-thirds towards my legalistic view of libertarianism, because I am not a preacher here to make converts.
As far as me being a 'defender' of North, like I said, I don't know that he is a libertarian and I do know that he is a theonomist. If he turns out to be a non-libertarian theonomist, well so much the worse for him; but I really never took his religious BS seriously to begin with so my interest in him is that he is a very eloquent and well informed on the subject of capitalist economies.
Nielsio, it's not being skeptical that I take issue with. It heavily depends on the topic. I don't believe the medical community is out to get me the same way I don't feel the need to use the government to keep my neighbors from hurting me (because they're frothing at the mouth to harm me and waiting for the perfect chance, hence that's why we need democracy! ).
The point I'm making is that there's a fine line between being skeptical and being paranoid. LRC strikes me as more paranoid than skeptical.
Eric,
Your'e making the classic mistake that bogus science and bogus practises require an all-compasing conspiracy.
Food for thought (semi-related):
http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html
Ricky James Moore II: Gary North actually understands economics, and has some comprehension of the history of American political movements; which is more than I can say for the various wankers calling themselves 'mutualists'.
Gary North actually understands economics, and has some comprehension of the history of American political movements; which is more than I can say for the various wankers calling themselves 'mutualists'.
You do know that the first anarchists were mutualists and this is widely known and accepted and that Rothbard had to borrow from them and An-caps claim them as their own in a very unhistoric manner.An-caps have little to no knowledge of anarchist history or theory.
John Ess: I'm just saying on the one hand, Gary North is not an anarchist and can never be justified as one. I noticed you tried to sneak in a lazy apologetics for him; which is one that he would refuse. Which tells me your apologetics is only for own conscience as a North supporter, rather than a maintainable point. And two, anyone -- left or otherwise -- is capable of making points. Regardless of reading preference, frame of reference, or confirmation bias. To dismiss the left simply because of your emotions regarding them is nonsense. Hence the double standard: right-wing guys can make glaring errors in their judgment and still be 'useful', while left-wing are retards. The logical position, however, would be to take both with a grain of salt. Or else admit your own blindspots and illogic.
A valid point. Even I, a critic of An-cap and 'traditional ' libertarianism do not deny that both have made valid points at times.Hell even as an An-cap,I admitted marxists have some truth.
John Ess:People who are for the nation state, for instance, are just for an anarchy between nations.
Are you saying that we already live in an anarcho-collectivist world?
OH SHI-
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
An-caps have little to no knowledge of anarchist history or theory.
Anarcho-Capitalism in the end is Anarchism with an economic theory that actually works.
Felipe: An-caps have little to no knowledge of anarchist history or theory. Anarcho-Capitalism in the end is Anarchism with an economic theory that actually works. Also pretty true. Anarchsim minus the economic crankery. I will break in the doors of hell and smash the bolts; there will be confusion of people, those above with those from the lower depths. I shall bring up the dead to eat food like the living; and the hosts of dead will outnumber the living. | Post Points: 5
I apologize if I begin to sound like a broken record pointing this out, but it's important to distinguish between the narrow, Western Christian Inquisitional conception of "religion" versus the wider social phenomenon of religion. While religion has played an enabling role in most State orders, so have many other social institutions (e.g. finance) and it is a grave mistake to single religion out for special punishment as if it is the key enabler of the State (ala Zeitgeist). There is nothing inherently aggressive or coercive about spinning yarns of the deeds of great deities or gathering to engage in worship rituals or meditation and prayer or liturgy or the reading and writing of spiritual books which is what comprises the vast majority of religious activity.
Even the superstitious aspects of religions get a bad rap. Superstition is just a coping mechanism when no better explanation is known for something. If people get sick and die whenever they are around dead bodies, what is "wrong" with suggesting that, perhaps, there are evil spirits hanging around dead bodies and it's best to stay away? Sure, it may be a factually incorrect explanation but, from the point of view of human ends, it gets the job done and that's all that really counts in the end. And it's not like educated modernity has dispelled superstition - just look at the Parenting Industrial Complex (as Steven Pinker has rightly called it), it's the outgrowth of white, Western hand-wringing nanny psychology and is mostly a sophisticated, scientific-looking complex of superstitions and other bullshit.
Clayton -
There is nothing inherently aggressive or coercive about spinning yarns of the deeds of great deities or gathering to engage in worship rituals or meditation and prayer or liturgy or the reading and writing of spiritual books which is what comprises the vast majority of religious activity.
This is true. I definitely don't go in for the Dawkinsian cranks who blame everything on religion, when religion is usually just a tool/pretext for politics in those situations. I think religion is logically absurd and super religious people are a bit psychologically wonky, but I think the actual books and traditions are interesting. Most atheists are just humanists, which is indistinguishable from liberal Protestantism.
Yes, Gary North is still today a Christian Reconstructionist. From what I understand of the movement, he was the heir of the Rushdoony mantle after Rushdoony passed away and so he is sort of the Godfather of the whole movement. That said, I don't think CR is worth a second thought, it's not a viable movement and there's not the slightest threat of a society like that which they envision coming into being. North's writings that are worth reading are just a collation and regurgitation of Mises or other thinkers and the rest is crap.
I actually like a lot of Rushdoony's stuff on federalism, economics and American history; but I agree that neither North nor Rushdoony have anything particularly original to say to libertarians; and I also agree that CR is a total non-issue, especially in today's secular-liberal-western culture. The best North and his like might be able to do is to get their own little private covenant in AnCapistan, so whether he has dreams of a global Calvinist hegemony is pretty irrelevant.
The first anarchist of any consistent sort was Edmund Burke, who was a market anarchist, and after and inspired by him was William Godwin, who was a Christian propertarian anarchist. And please, while most libertarians (like most people) may not know their Bakunin from Batman I have read pretty much every anarchist of consequence up until the early 20th century; from Josiah Warren to Nestor Makhno to Zo d'Axa to Tolstoi; and only a handful of them would qualify as 'mutualists' and maybe 2/3rds at most could be considered 'left-wing' of any sort. You seem to forget that although he was a mutualist, Proudhon was a radical cultural conservative and racist who believed in Christian patriarchy.
The real fact of the matter is this: left-wing anarchists know practically nothing about anarchist thought throughout history, and just because the collectivist anarchists are the most popular in a left-wing collectivist culture (surprise!) that does not change that their economics are f'ing stupid, like all collectivist nutters.
Even the anarchist and anarchisty-types who can be considered anti-capitalist are not all left wing, Max Stirner, Zo d'Axa and the Personalists were all anti-capitalist in some ways but if you think they're egalitarians you need to be admitted to a drug rehab facility.
Capitalism = economy. There is no alternative to capitalism as an economy. Anyone who denies this is just plain ignorant.