Gary Johnson describes himself as a Libertarian but isn’t one.
A Libertarian is not a “socially liberal/fiscally conservative” Republican – which is what Johnson is, even if he doesn’t realize it.
Republicans, just like Democrats, believe the use of coercion to organize society and direct the actions of individuals contrary to their will is morally legitimate; they just prefer to use less of it – and for different reasons – than Democrats.
It’s like the difference between Coke and Pepsi… .
Johnson supports forcing people to have their children vaccinated (and according to a schedule decreed by government; that is, by people such as himself). He believes it is acceptable to threaten people with violence in order to compel them to hand over their money (taxes) just like a Democrat; the only difference being the use to which these extorted funds are put. Johnson prefers taxes designed to combat “climate change” or to fund the United Nations. But he does not object to taxes in principle.
Johnson, like other Republicans, supports using force to impose his values on others; to deny other people their right to freely associate (or not associate). He is on record defending the use of government force to compel the owner of a privately owned business to do business with people he would prefer not to do business with. Etc.
Whether you agree or disagree with any of the above political points-of-view, there can be no disagreement that Libertarians do not countenance such things.
Johnson may be a libertine (he supports state-sanctioned gay marriage and is ok with the state acceding to the use/possession of some drugs – those Johnson thinks are “ok”) but he isn’t a Libertarian. He doesn’t seem to have any idea what it means to be a Libertarian.
So, what defines a Libertarian?
Fundamentally, a Libertarian is a person who rejects as a moral indecency the use of force in social/political interactions with others. He defends the moral principle of voluntary interactions.
Even when he personally would perhaps act differently or does not approve of what others choose to do.
The Libertarian accepts as his moral-philosophical starting point that just as he is the absolute owner of himself, other people are equally the absolute owners of themselves. Accordingly – logically and morally – no human being has any rightful ownership claims to another human being.
Or their property.
Libertarians hold that what you create or produce (or freely acquire by purchasing it or it being freely given to you by its rightful owner) is yours without qualification – and belongs to no other person. You may choose to share what’s yours with others. But no one has a right to force you to share, much less take your property – or control it any way whatsoever.
This is a critical point in the Libertarian moral lexicon, because to control a thing is to assert ownership of a thing. If you are under duress to accept control of something you supposedly own by another person or a collective of some sort (i.e., the “community”) then you are not truly the owner of that thing; the others who do control it are its true owners and you are merely a conditional custodian.
Libertarians reject conditional custodianship as a species of slavery, equally immoral.
For this reason, they oppose all taxes in principle but in particular those levied against real estate – people’s homes and land – which are particularly odious because they effectively make it impossible to ever actually own and therefore, control, your land or home. Such taxes amount to rent-in-perpetuity, rendering the “owner” a tenant. They are a frontal assault on the most basic liberty a free man possesses – to be free on his land, in his home.
Beholden to no one.
Income taxes are almost as morally obnoxious to a Libertarian and not merely because they involve the coercive taking of people’s rightful property, the work product of their minds and bodies. They also require each tax victim to submit to close scrutiny of his affairs; to have to account to the government what he earns and what he possesses and what he spends his money on. Income taxes vitiate one of the most fundamental requirements of a civil society:
When an individual’s right to privacy is no longer respected, he has no other rights worth mentioning.
This brings us to the Libertarian’s opposition to any legal restriction/interference whatsoever with each individual person’s freedom of association, which flows from the concept of every human being having absolute sovereignty over himself and whatever property he has rightfully acquired. So, for example, the owner of a bar or restaurant has an absolute right to serve (or not serve) whomever he likes, according to whatever standard he wishes to apply.
This does not mean Libertarians approve of allowing people to smoke in a bar or of a business denying people service or refusing to deal with certain people on account of the owner’s personal dislike of those people for no rationally defensible reason (e.g., race or sex). It means Libertarians accept that the owner of something owns that thing and by dint of that fact, no other person has the moral right to force him to share the thing, rent the thing, use the thing or decree terms and conditions of the use of that thing.
Libertarians believe that using force in any way that compromises property rights is fundamentally an assault on human rights far worse in its inevitable end result (an authoritarian government micromanaging all human interactions such as we have now) than accepting the human reality that some humans are not the nicest people. Those not-nice humans, however, are much less a threat to other humans because they are legally powerless to impose themselves or their views on others.
They can deny/refuse service. But they cannot force others to deny and refuse.
Which leaves everyone else free to seek better alternatives without resorting to the use of force.
A bar owner who allows smoking in his establishment has no power to prevent another person from opening a smoke-free bar. A racist who refuses to serve blacks cannot force other business to refuse to serve blacks.
Only the coercive power of the state – legally binding on everyone – can impose blanket restrictions on people.
In terms of the “socially liberal” things, Libertarians oppose the criminalization of the consumption/manufacture/possession/sale of any “drugs” and – more generally – any interference whatsoever with what private people who own themselves elect do with themselves. Libertarians do not asset ownership over the bodies of other human beings. They do not regard themselves as the parents of other adults; are not afflicted with the effrontery to presume they know what’s “best” for other adults. They accept that even when it is inarguable that they do know better, that they have no moral right to do more than suggest or advise.
Because they are not the masters, owners or parents of other people.
Libertarians oppose in principle the use of government force to compel people to purchase health or car insurance or any other product or service because to force a person to hand over money against his will – even when a product or service is provided in exchange – is nonetheless theft – the taking by force of someone else’s property.
Libertarians have a specific definition of crime that is profoundly/fundamentally different from the definition used by Republicans and Democrats alike – who both define crime as a violation of law. Libertarians, on the other hand, insist on a victim as the essential thing that defines a crime, morally speaking- and hold that any accusation of wrongdoing that lacks the substantiation of an actual human being actually harmed is by definition not criminal.
Libertarians reject the Republican/Democrat premise that it’s legitimate to pre-emptively punish (or even control) any person because “someone” might cause harm. Examples of this include laws that arbitrarily decree driving above a certain speed to be an offense in and of itself (no harm caused to anyone).
Libertarians take the position that is morally legitimate to to hold people accountable for the harms they cause – but if they have caused no harm to others, insist that they be left alone.
Note the distinction: Hold people accountable for harms they have caused …. as opposed to punishing them for having “violated” a statute.
Libertarians believe in restitution. They do not believe a statute can be victimized because a statute is a mere construct and (unlike an actual flesh and blood human being) has no rights that can be violated.
Gary Johnson does not believe in such things. Neither, of course, do Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.
But neither Trump nor Hillary pretend to be Libertarians.
Johnson, unfortunately, does.
EPautos.com depends on you to keep the wheels turning! Clovers hate us!
Goo-guhl blackballed us!
Will you help us?
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
EPautos stickers – new design, larger and magnetic! – are free to those who send in $10 or more to support the site.
Others who know me, say I am. So I guess I am a Libertarian. At least in the eyes of my phyle.
Close enough, and like 8-So. said, it’d beat hell out of most of what we get now days.
EP. Well done. Great and punchy summation of both Johnson’s shortcomings as well as what the heart of libertarianism is. Lots of good discussion generated above, too.
One small typo, though:
“Libertarians do not asset ownership over the bodies of other human beings.”
I think you meant “assert.”
Yes, it’s obvious that Johnson isn’t a libertarian. He also isn’t even a member of the LP. By the 2nd Clinton presidential campaign, the LP had already become irrelevant by allowing a top-down organization to form within its structure. The self proclaimed bosses of this structure managed to turn the party into a fundraising apparatus for a small group of campaign managers who lost elections. It became apparent to a few long time LP members that the losses were deliberate.
Look up Bumper Hornberger’s articles at FFF from the late ’90s to early 2000. He laid it out pretty well.
Again if you do some firsthand investigation of Gary Johnson, rather than the second handed propaganda sandwiches both pro and con. You see what kind of sort he really was.
In the beginning he was OK. Originally he was from ND He built himself up from nothing to a construction business owner worth 3 to 10 million dollars. He probably went to the dark side around 1994 when he ran for Governor of NM. Here’s his bio.
in college, Johnson earned money as a door-to-door handyman. His success in that industry encouraged him to start his own business, Big J Enterprises, in 1976. When he started the business, which focused on mechanical contracting, Johnson was its only employee. His firm’s major break came when he received a large contract from Intel’s expansion in Rio Rancho, which increased Big J’s revenue to $38 million.
To cope with the growth of the company, Johnson enrolled in a time management course at night school, which he credits with making him heavily goal driven. He eventually grew Big J into a multimillion-dollar corporation with over 1,000 employees. By the time he sold the company in 1999, it was one of New Mexico’s leading construction companies.
Unlike George Washington. He was originally a good guy value creator, likely from 1971 to 1994. Then he became governor of NM for two terms. So we know he was bad guy then. Maybe less bad than others. He vetoed 700 bills and at least spent less than the usual bureacrat/predator would have spent in his stead.
As far as I am concerned anyone who accepts a position of plunderer in chief of a nation or even of a small state, is prima facie, the worst sort of non-value creating human you can find. Instead they are all destroyers of value and enslavers of mankind. There are no good enslavers.
Perhaps there is nothing good that can become of a working class slave or political master. The best that can be hoped is that someday they die, and that their children will follow something not based on caveman plundering and groveling to those who hold life and death power over another man.
The Darwinian fact of our existence is that the most productive, or creative do not hold the best position in American society. Rather the worst sort have staked out the high ground, and all of us are resigned to a life of misery and despair. We are like the worst sort of savages, grunting and deluded pursuing those who would kill us and thinking they are our fathers and “leaders.”
How many years ago has it been the major polling companies showed the voting public had single percentage approval of Congress and some more for the prez(??? not a clue why). Both Dems and Reps viewed the prez less than 40 and 30% approval. So, if approval of congress is at that level and approval of the prez is so low, how come people keep voting?
I’ve noticed in the last couple elections it was very hard to discern what amount of voters really did vote.
I’ve given this business a great deal of thought over the years. In particular, would I be tempted by some huge sum of money, obtainable if I sold out? Tempted? Certainly. But would I sell out?
I like to think not – but no one knows until presented with the opportunity.
But in my defense, I am not a greedhead. I have my country place, some land. It’s all I need – and want. I am happy so long as I can remain here, piddle with my various projects, read a book while stretched out on the sofa on nice afternoons and (maybe, one day) have someone to share it with again.
Probably there is something wrong with me.
I am surprised at how little is offered these days to sell out.
a head hunter wanted to get my interest in an opportunity to make warren buffet richer. Now it wasn’t put that way, but I got enough info to figure it out. Compared to the amount of work involved and what it would make the company the salary was pittance. Actually it was considerably less than what companies pay regular engineers with a few years experience in Si Valley. A lot of work required too. Essentially anyone who took that job and could be successful at it would be better off starting his own company.
Wow, Eric! What you describe is my modus-operandi exactly. I have my modest place in the country. I can live cheaply, without having to be a part of the system. I’m happy. All I want is to be left alone.
Money doesn’t interest me. If I woke up tomorrow and suddenly had $350Million, how would that change anything? It wouldn’t change the world around us; it wouldn’t make me any freer (if anything, it would make me less free); it’s not going to change the views of people who do rotten things (Like: take up arms against their neighbors for a paycheck from Uncle) – I’m happy with my old vehicles; I don’t want a Lambo or a Ferrari or a Hummer….
I really don’t want any more possessions than the modest things I already have, because really, what do they add to life? They too often subtract from life, by making you waste your time futzing with them, and maintaining them, etc.
Really, all I want is to be left alone, and money can’t buy that. P;us, I’d then have to end up giving half of it to Uncle for his wars, cager/enforcers and all of their various Nazis- and really, I don’t want to do ANYTHING to advance their system!
This attitude of ours is really good, because while most people are motivated by money and power, we are not- and thus we can not be easily controlled. I mean, I don’t want those things if they were handed to me; I’m certainly not going to be a cog in their system and toil my life away trying to attain them!
Most people can be easily controlled because of their lust for money and power. The only way they can control those of us who don’t lust after those things, is by brute overt force.
You and I are about as free as anyone can be in this world today.
Hey Nunzio, your lifestyle (and Eric’s) sounds good to me, but I became a debt slave before I realized what a scam it was. Now I ‘own’ a house with a sizeable mortgage in addition to taxes. At least I live in a state w/o personal property tax.
I was very fortunate, Phillip. I grew up very poor (it was GREAT!) and while my parents weren’t very good with money (obviously), the one thing they had right and always instilled in me, was to never go into debt. Save and pay cash, or ya can’t afford it. Probably the greatest thing I ever learned. That, and the fact that I had a lot of this figured out from a very young age (at the age of 6, I was like “If we’re “free” how come we HAVE to go to school? and at 7 I’d wonder why I’d see stories in the newspaper about guys who owned small stores being taken away by guys with guns and badges, because they didn’t give part of their money to Uncle.) served me well.
Except, that living in the city and bucking the system, while trying to break free and get some land in the country, was a little tricky. But I made it eventually, and had no regrets along the way, and overall a great life.
If we were free though, I would have done things a lot differently. A lot of effort goes into bucking the system. It’s probably easier to go along with their program, but then there comes a point where you can never get out; you’re in too deep. And the real sad thing, is when you see people who have gone along for half of their lives, and then regret it.
Ditto all that, Nunzio!
I have never in my life bought a vehicle I could not pay cash for (all under $10k; most under $5k). I never carry a balance on a credit card and use them as a convenience only. My main indulgence is good food!
Eric, I didn’t even get my first credit card till I was 40 -and only got that so I could make online purchases. I wouldn’t even know how to use it in a store!
It’s funny how some of us have managed to not be as affected as others by all the propaganda/brainwashing of the times.
I’d take the $350M. I could get by on half that, a huge amount less actually. I’d get an accountant to see Uncle gets as small amount as legal. I’d hire people who need the income and crack the whip on them….or just make sure they get enough money every month to have a stress=free living and good health care.
I’d get the old lady a new attitude if I could find her one. I’d have a new phone number that led only to me and give it to very few. I’d get my best friend fixed up physically if possible and we be out of pocket every day of the year, hopefully catching all sorts of fish in all sorts of places…..or just do whatever we felt like.
As far as a house goes, that would be chump change and belong to the company I worked for.
At my age, I’d spare no expense…..in some other country to get everyone I knew as healthy as possible. I’d hire my neighbor with a good tractor, tiller and land to grow some good veggies for all of us. He could grow some good beef, pork and fowl for us too. And he’d do a dandy job, no chemicals in sight.
I’d send some to various other people that might use it to fulfill their passion in life.
I’m already eating like a king, black eye peas and cornbread, and could live off less than $2K a month….counting beer. I’d buy a farm in Co. and give pot to everyone who had cancer or any other malady it would help.
$2K a month? That’s rich compared to me!
Aww, C’mon 8SM, having that money and all of those things would make little to no difference in your life. You’d still be you, and the world would still be what it is.
You could giver itall away, but I’d bet that everyone to whom you’d give, no matter how much, would be in need again in the near future, ’cause in the long run, it’s not really about money, it’s about the decisions we make in our lives; the philosophies we embrace; the things we do. And those things are often the cause of our need, rather than the other way around.
I know someone who makes 3.5 times as much as I do, and yet they’re always in need. I’m like you, I live like a king. Costs practically nothing to make a delicious loaf of whole wheat bread, and keeps me healthy, while this rich dude I know keeps getting gout and kidney stones and clogged arteries.
I wouldn’t even want the responsibility of having to deal with big money. It gives us power beyond our abilities. Think back to when you were say 20. What would you have done with that kind of money then? Probably things you wouldn’t approve of today, even if you were mature and wise, just because of inexperience and lack of knowledge. 20 years from now, you’ll feel the same way about your current self as you do now about you when you were 20.
Well, O-K, the one thing I would like to buy, would be my own island, or maybe a square mile of land, and with some ocean frontage. But just think what that would obligate me to, as far as Uncle goes? Sure, I’d be able to afford it then, but I’d feel I was doing wrong by paying their extortion.
Good work, Tor. My view is that by seeking office a person pretty well demonstrates that he’s not to be trusted. Of course, I’m more an anarchist than a libertarian, so my view is probably different from that of most libertarians.
“As far as I am concerned anyone who accepts a position of plunderer in chief of a nation or even of a small state, is prima facie, the worst sort of non-value creating human you can find. Instead they are all destroyers of value and enslavers of mankind. There are no good enslavers.” -Tor
This is why our collective problems can not be solved through politics. A political system revolves around the use of force and the redistribution of wealth to force others to do things which they otherwise would not, or to prohibit them from doing things that they want to do, but which do not infringe on anyone else’s property or person. The only way to advance freedom, is to destroy such a system, NOT to become a cog in it’s apparatus, or an overseer/manager/enforcer of it’s policies.
As Libertarians, instead of running for office, we should be seeking to eliminate that office! To do otherwise is no different than someone in Soviet-era Russia or Nazi Germany thinking that they are going to transform the system by accepting a position an administrator of that system.
This is why even someone like Ron Paul (whom I like) never really accomplished anything in a Libertarian sense (other than the promoting of Libertarian ideas) during his long career in the system- because all you can do as a part of the system, is to play their game, by their rules. If you work to destroy that system, or decrease it’s power or pilfered wealth, then you are classified as a criminal and booted out and/or put in a cage.
Another sign the Sweet Meteor of Death may be on the way.
The Cubby Bears are going to the World Series.
Laissez les bon temps rouler!
Win or lose, the riots they will choose.
What a great piece !!!!!!Clear, Concise and irrefutable! Lysander Spooner would be proud
Thanks Owyhee Cowboy
Thanks, Dirk! Also: Welcome to EPautos!
Nobel Laurate Ivar Kills It On Global Warming
Good article and comments. However, we humans are still animals, and like any other species, the strongest and most predatory amongst us rise to the top and take charge of the troop/herd/tribe. The species needs to evolve more (looking difficult the way we are devolving, if you compare the newspapers, magazines and television programs of 20 years ago to the drivel that is out there today) to truly be able to live in a NAP world.
“the strongest and most predatory amongst us rise to the top and take charge of the troop/herd/tribe.”
And who runs the State? Is it not the most dangerous and predatory among us? Government exacerbates the situation you describe because the predators are protected from the danger and risk they would face absent the false legitimacy provided by government “law”. The true genius of these psychopaths is that they’ve convinced most people that their predation is necessary for “society” to function. They produce an endless series of lies and misrepresentations to us about the awesome things they’ve accomplished and the horrible things that would happen without them. For instance, the wild west was not so wild after all.
I’ve never understood the “people suck so we need the State” argument. Those who suck the most use the power of the State. If people suck, the State is too dangerous to tolerate.
You misunderstand me, Jeremy. I am making the same point that you are, i.e. The state is the vehicle used by modern day predatory types to take control of the species.
Till we evolve to the point where we do not see the need to be ruled by our “betters” and we lose the desire to dominate others, we will be stuck with the way things are. I wouldn’t count on that happening any time in the foreseeable future.
Ah, thanks for the clarification.
I, too, can see the light fading. I believe we are descending into a time of ignorance and enstupidation comparable to that which befell the West after the fall of Rome.
I think it is entirely conceivable that our technological civilization could collapse and revert to something 11th century-ish.
I think it has happened before.
I agree, Eric. I always say that we are re-entering the Dark Ages. Look, suddenly, we’ve reverted back to tortured confessions and everything!
People now have the world at their fingertips, thanks to the WWW, but it seems that most just want to play on Facebook or watch porn, and despite the availability of all the info, people seem to be getting dumber by the day.
And the current generation who have grown-up with computers and smart phones, seem to be incapable of doing anything without an “app” or a device. Image when the power is turned off?! They will be helpless.
“Enstupidation”? Is that a word? If not, it SHOULD be! I like it! It’s very cromulent.
As for Garish Johnson, he’s really giving Libertarianism a bad name. Those who are not familiar with the philosophy of real libertarianism, and who think that Johnson is one, will now automatically dismiss anything labeled “Libertarian”, thinking that Johnson’s bastardized Republicratism is what we stand for.
That douche is to Libertarianism what Stephen Hawking is to Olympic sprinting. I’d like to know where the douche’s money comes from. I envision it coming from those who really want to destroy any vestiges of real Libertarianism. This really makes me think that the “Libertarian Party” is a red herring.
Something slouches toward Bethlehem – a reference the enstupified masses will not grok. I (and anyone over 40 today) can recall a time when the use of torture, denial of due process – the glibness toward brutality that’s pervasive today – would have appalled most “decent” (as they were once styled) Americans.
It was about 40 years ago that the public learned about the My Lai massacre – and there was national outrage. Today, a person such as Lt. Calley would be feted as a national hero. Nixon was hounded out of office for mere lying. Hillary (and Obama and The Chimp) commit war crimes and absolutely nothing happens to them.
America is ready, I think.
One can almost hear the notes of Die Fahne hoch! (or whatever the American version will prove to be)…
eric, is “something slouches toward Bethlehem” akin to “something wicked this way comes”?
Outrage reaches significant levels where the media covers things or especially when it covers things to outrage people.
People can be more informed than ever if they seek it out. But if they stick with what is easy they know even less than ever because of the media concentration of ownership.
The average person has never seen the damning evidence of anything. It’s mentioned in passing on the TV news as if it had no significance so it has none. At most these things become part of the left/right banter and thus meaningless.
So there’s outrage still, but it’s for the agenda not against it.
The tiny minority that’s informed and outraged about the real problems will never reach the masses unwilling to inform themselves and that’s the problem. It’s always been the problem. It’s just worse now. There’s no independent papers or tv channels or any way of reaching the passive. So no outrage.
Hi Eric, et al,
Good points in this article. America is over essentially, and it was not without significant warts from the very beginning. WRT Gary Johnson, nothing like a libertarian. Just more of the same old rhetoric in an incredibly irritating package. Have a look at this ewe toob video for an interesting take on Johnson.
In any case, hope ya’ll are stocked up on ammo and whatever firearms you need….this shit is about to get really nasty.
The Internet is far more fragile than we’re led to believe. We’re told it was designed to “withstand a nuclear war” but that is only if you have multiple paths between hosts. And it depends on a highly decentralized peer-to-peer system, not the highly centralized client-server architecture we have now. Most tier 2 and tier 1 networks not only run along the same path, but in many cases the same fiber optic cable.
Fast, cheap, or right. Choose any two.
““Enstupidation”? Is that a word? If not, it SHOULD be! I like it! It’s very cromulent. ”
If it wasn’t a word before, it is now. I’ve just adopted it. Now as for “cromulent”, I have to smoke that one over.
The western world is certainly not heading in the right direction. Men are encouraged to be more like women, women want to join the marines, gender is fluid, young people are as fragile as glass, growing up shielded from micro-aggressions, with trigger warnings and safe spaces in colleges. I could go on and on….
Even worse, in my view, is the enstupidation of the populace. The general indifference toward – even contempt for – the 18th century conception of a thinking/thoughtful mind. Public discourse today has regressed to the level of a “slow” sixth grader – and that’s probably an overly generous characterization.
You see the signs everywhere. The West is dying.
Perhaps Asia will keep the lights on.
Yup. Laws are enforced only on the common (unconnected) populace, while known violators like Hilary Clinton and Goldman Sachs walk away scot free and continue to pillage taxpayer money. The new feudal order has taken root.
I wouldn’t count on Asia. People in that part of the world are even more deferential to authority than in the west. They may not behave in as outwardly degenerate a manner as some in the west, but accept the lies of their government just as easily.
Maybe it’s just in my part of the world but I don’t see fragile children except for those who can afford to be fragile and that’s fewer every day.
You can’t hurt them with sex since they are old hands at it and have plenty experience mid-teens.
The last round in the patch had me working with lots of 40 down to 18. They spoke of being in jail like we speak of eating out. They can all sit and compare probation officers and jails. The have 0 respect for cops with a good fear factor. The well to do kids may be a bit more fragile but not a lot more. Probably more fragile kids in wealthy neighborhoods but they too have had many rounds with cops and courts, they just came out smelling better.
Bill Weld comes from a very old Massachusetts family and is of the same line that ran the former famous White, Weld & Company investment bank in the Manhattan financial district. These people connect us directly to the British financial system. Weld is an extremely spooky man and no telling what he is a member of that the press will never report.
Yup. Weld is another latter-day Hamilton. Whose object was to recreate the British system under their control. He succeeded. There was a temporary respite, even under the Constitution of 1787, after the Federalists (who were the Hamiltonians) were routed and discredited as a political party. But they kept coming back and – repackaged under the Republican label in 1861 – began their Great Work in earnest.
First of all, I found this article to be very interesting and informative. Even though I don’t agree with all the content, I certainly respect the right of every individual to his/her political beliefs (and ideals).
For years, I considered myself a Libertarian, but I now know that I am simply an ‘Independent’. I’m gay and pro-choice (double disqualified to be an uptight Republican) but I’m also a firm believer in the Second Amendment, capital punishment and I oppose government handouts (so the Dems won’t have me).
The Libertarian ideology, as described above, could and likely would work in a perfect world. But what protection would we have without our military? Who would pay for the roads that we travel and other critical infrastructure without taxation? Without compulsory auto insurance, who would pay for the damage (bodily injuries and physical property) if the at-fault driver didn’t have the ability to do so?
I genuinely believe that no person should have the right to force his/her moral, ethical or religious beliefs on anyone else. I also would love a world without speed limits, excessive taxes and without the possibility of ‘big brother’ violating my privacy for any reason they want!
I’ve never considered the moral or ethical implications of mandatory child vaccinations. While I am suspicious of the potential ‘safety’ of some vaccines (such as the link between some vaccines and autism, for example), what happens when a child is not vaccinated and infects another child? Have they not caused injury to another individual at that point?
I’m not trying to start an argument or criticize anyone in any way (at least not on this topic). But I would like to understand how a nation could exist without the few items I’ve mentioned above, just to name a few?
I guess you’re right. No nation could exist without capital punishment or mandatory auto insurance.
Without a military to go and kill people you have never met and cannot even name, life would be perilous.
And if men with costumes and guns didn’t take other people’s land and money to make the roads, that would be truly inconvenient.
And I’m sure you’ve “never considered the moral or ethical implications of mandatory” anything.
So, how can I put this nicely?
Fuck off, go fuck yourself, or eat shit and die all seem a bit improper.
I’d like to begin my response by noting some of the terms you’ve used. For example, “our” military. This is a very modern usage. It was – as recently as the ’90s (I was there, you probably also) “the” military. Note the difference in both tone and meaning. “Our” presuming a collective and a reverential attitude.
That aside, what does the military actually protect? It is certainly not “our freedoms” – of which we have fewer and fewer each year. If you look at it objectively, the vast military does not exist to defend the United States. It exists to project the power of the federal government – that is, the ruling clique that controls the government – around the globe. A force a fourth the size would be amply sufficient to defend the United States.
The “pay for the roads” thing is tiresome – a boilerplate statist objection that is almost unconsciously uttered by people as a reflex whenever Libertarianism is brought up. Read about how roads would get built (and did get built) without a Leviathan state here: http://ericpetersautos.com/2016/05/08/uncles-roads/
Compulsory insurance: Note that it presumes harm. But even if the person forced to buy insurance harms none, he is nonetheless harmed by having been forced to buy insurance. The Libertarian response is to hold people accountable when they cause harm – but not before they have caused harm. Nor because they might cause harm.
And, by your standard, shouldn’t people be forced to buy life and other forms of insurance as well? How about mandatory gun insurance?
If not, why not?
Perhaps you see the can of worms you have opened. Once you accept that it’s ok to force people to buy one kind of insurance on the basis that “someone” might cause harm and by golly we have to make sure “they” don’t impose costs on “society” you have given the government carte blanche – limited only by what it decides not to do.
Well said Eric! That is why I am an Anarchitarian! Yes, I have created a new word I think. :0)
Thinking further: both words anarchy and libertarian carry negative baggage due to misuse by the MSM and the other talking heads along with fakers such as Bill Maher, Neal Boortz, and others.
Nevertheless; I had still used those words because they were accurate ones for those of us who care about genuine meanings.
The enemies haven’t yet soiled this new word yet; so perhaps it should be adopted and somehow protected by some strategy that is beyond my capability to put into motion.
Suggestions are invited!
You may be right that “Libertarian” has been irreparably damaged by the Gary Johnsons of the world. The larger problem, though, is getting people to question the fundamental thing that – if not questioned – makes any moral discussion of political activity impossible: The Myth of Authority. The idea that actions which almost everyone understands to be moral wrongs when performed by an individual somehow become morally acceptable when they are done by individuals acting under color of authority, that having been conferred by nonexistent constructs such as “society” as expressed through legitimation shuck and jives such as the ballot box.
If theft is wrong, then theft is always wrong. No matter what you call it.
If it’s wrong to threaten to hurt someone to make them do what you want them to do, then it is always wrong to threaten to hurt people to get them to do what you want them to do. No matter what you call it.
This is what Rand was getting at when she baroquely ranted about Aristotle’s “A is A” stuff.
The problem before us is how to present this in a way that’s not baroque, that appeals to people’s moral sense – in particular, to their empathy.
Most people are not by nature sociopaths. Most of them really do want to be “good” – and do the right thing. This instinct has been misused for all of human history by sociopaths.
Brian, it was like a podcast I listened to on Pandora where this dick of a narrator spoke of the chaos in Somalia and called it “anarchy”, at which point I just turned it off wishing I could comment or email the guy and give a dictionary definition for anarchy and one for chaos.
“what happens when a child is not vaccinated and infects another child?”
Well, if vaccines were as effective as ‘they’ claim, a person who had been vaccinated could not be infected. I, and no doubt many others here, ‘suffered from’ and survived measles, mumps, chicken pox and rubella. Yes, I missed a few days of school (except for the mumps, had them in the summer. Drat!) Now I have immunity.
Yes, there are occasional bad cases with worse effects. But there are also bad reactions to vaccines. Life happens.
Isn’t it interesting that most people begin their defense of government coercion with “what happens when…”? Do they not notice what definitely will happen if they cede authority to government?
Jason worries about what might happen to him if he is hit by an uninsured driver. He does not worry about the certainty of being forced to pay for insurance, of having to sweat DMV “points” that will jack up his rates; of not being at liberty to tell the insurance company to go fuck itself if it raises rates beyond those he is willing (and able) to pay.
The general genuflection amazes and depresses me. The average person practically worship the golem that is government. Stalin’s chicken comes to mind. I wonder whether Jason knows that story…
The “what if” and “someone might” bogeymen are exactly that. No individual person out there has ever caused me major harm, or threatened my liberty.
But government? It is the source of almost all the major harms inflicted upon me and is the sole threat to my liberty – and Jason’s, too.
They don’t even understand the illusion of the laws. They think because it is a law everyone will obey. It’s false. There are uninsured motorists out there despite the fact there is a law requiring insurance. They trade freedom for the illusion of security. There’s no actual or real security, it’s just flim-flam. A con game.
Brent, for whatever reason(I guess in hopes of making more money)insurance companies will sell you a 6 month policy you pay out month by month. Hispanics don’t need no stinkin insurance so they buy the first month, carry the car for a 6 months or a year depending on what it says. Don’t think you don’t need uninsured motorist. Before mandatory insurance it added a dollar or two, can’t remember which. It was a good buy. There are no good buys for anything now since govt. “regulates” every damned thing we can conceive of.
Why do you want to remain in a chain gang of 320 million. Why not secede and go your way. A gay nation of for and by the gay. Not that rainbow flag triangle symbol schtick you’ve been repping. You can be something new and bring new value to the world.
But something of your own and apart. Fully actualized. You’re some of the smartest anywhere. Get free of these leeching breeders. Stop shining the elites shoes and make your own culture. Your own language and group niche that you control.
Just a single comment you made Jason. Who would build the roads? I spent years building roads and the people who paid for them did so despite the taxes govt. stuck them with. I built one road for the govt. and it was low pay although the cost of the road was extremely expensive. And that’s the way it is when “govt.” builds anything. So many are standing around with their hand out for various reasons of perceived legitimacy they should be paid……and mostly because they work for govt. in some way.
Thanks for what appears to be genuine interest in the topic. Please excuse the frustration evinced by some. But we’ve heard all of your “objections” before and answering them is tiresome. The short answer is that everything you claim can only be achieved by force (government) has been achieved before without force. This should be enough, if your interest is genuine, to do some research on your own.
Here are some suggestions:
The Machinery of freedom http://www.daviddfriedman.com/
All of these are available for free. If these peak your interest there is alot more, much of it free, online.
I try to give anyone expressing a genuine interest in libertarian thought the benefit of the doubt. Please understand that we had a resident troll here who would ask the same questions over and over. At first many of us attempted to answer, but his responses were always an incoherent gushing of hatred and insults. If you take the time to do some research on your own, then ask question that show you have done so, I’m pretty sure you will receive a good response.
Jeremy, since Jason is a 2nd believer we might all do well to follow him to the polls and cast our vote for The Donald. I say this because of the wiki-leaks emails of Hitlery’s that are alluded to “here”:http://lewrockwell.us7.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=6ad24f4cd1574f1f7b8a0a03a&id=a7974a00ed&e=62e95e6f13
I just can’t bring myself to care who gets elected. Trump is a cop sucker extraordinaire. Eventually the naked aggression of cops will get so extreme that the fictional “war on cops” may actually begin. No matter what they say now, cops will officially get on board with civilian disarmament in the near future. Perhaps the average right winger will resist such a move more effectively under the wicked witch than under Trump. I have no reason to believe that Trump’s current stance on gun control is genuine as his authoritarian impulses vastly outweigh whatever flicker of respect for freedom that exists in his vain megalomaniacal soul.
I just want the circus to be over.
“I just want the circus to be over.”
The show hasn’t even started.
Seven virgins and a mule, guaranteed to blow your mind apart.
keep it cool, keep it cool.
Giant Meteor 2016. Just end it already.
And BTW it’s meteor shower time of year.
“Decrypting the Cosmic Origins of Halloween”
Don’t mistake what I have said for hope. After reading that article(please, read it)I have no reason to doubt Hitlery will use executive orders to criminalize gun possession. I will fight this war, even in my geriatric state, but I’d rather have more of the sheeple on board. If everyone felt like the older people in this part of Texas do then I’d say we have a fighting chance. I don’t have to do anything but mention the current situation and people will uninhibitably give me their views we’ve lost our country. Twice in one week, once from a 76 year old woman(didn’t know her but she told me her age)at the post office who, after getting her mail, turned to me and a friend in conversation said “We don’t have any rights anymore. The govt. just tells us everything we’re going to do and that’s it.”
Maybe I shouldn’t care who gets elected….and for the most part I don’t since it will be half a dozen of one, six of the other but an out and out gun control(control, the only word Hitlery enjoys)freak is the tip of the ice berg. Maybe that’s not true. It may be the tip of civil war. I want you to know I have nothing else to live for and I’ll fight that war but everybody’s going to have to put up or shut up in the near future I see. Thankfully, I’m still(for reasons I can’t explain)the dead eye shot I have always been. But there need to be other, younger people who can do things other than shoot. I can organize to some extent but it’s tough for me to go to ground and get it done.
It’s strange that old people become fearless. I wouldn’t have guessed it in my younger days if not for older people I knew who had no truck with govt. Now it’s me. I see things in a different light. The wife, the dog, our land and things we believe are still being harrassed and threatened with death. What the fuck do I care any longer? When you’re creeping up on 70 years old and the cops just continue to fuck with you, that good night’s sleep is no longer possible and that idea that you can simply sit back and enjoy life is no longer possible. We try to enjoy life but how much enjoyment can you have when you continue to have big helicopters and ground troops accost you at home when you have done nothing to cause it?
Well, we’ll see what comes. If Hitlery wins, we’ll see it sooner than later. Maybe it ‘s for the best in the long run. I won’t be alive to witness it but like billions others, it won’t really make a shit.
Thanks for your moving post. I still, probably naively, have hope. Not in politicians or political “solutions” but in people, especially people like you. I read the article and it merely confirms what should be obvious: Hitlery is a conniving control freak who considers any “legal” restraint on the power of the presidency to be a minor distraction. She will probably pursue an aggressive gun control agenda, which is likely to be resisted more forcefully coming from her than from Trump. At best, the election of Trump may delay the implementation for a few years. Eventually, Republican politicians will get on board with whatever increase of Federal power the Democrats desire, as they always do. This may actually be worse as the tribal affiliation of the “right” to Republican politicians will neuter widespread opposition once these pols declare that gun control is necessary to protect our “heroes”.
As for the courage of old people compared to the acquiescence of the young, I don’t find it strange. Freeman Dyson observes this with respect to climate skeptics. The unfortunate reality is that early adopters of forceful resistance to government tyranny get killed. Thus, resistance will not be significant until the abuses of those in power become so extreme that submission is no longer rational. It is a horrible dilemma. If moat of us simply stopped obeying government orders, the rulers could not survive. However, if only a few stop obeying, they will be harshly punished or killed. This fact discourages widespread opposition until the consequences of submission are worse than the consequences of rebellion. Perhaps old people represent our only hope.
The Great Prophet Jeremy tells us,
“Thus, resistance will not be significant until the abuses of those in power become so extreme that submission is no longer rational.”
Please give us an example.
Rationality was rationed out of existence long before the two of us were born.
I agree, T –
If the bleak pages of history tell us anything, it is that the mass of people will endure almost anything. Consider the average Russian during the Soviet era. Resignation, passivity… sound familiar?
I haven’t noticed any posts from Jean lately. I wonder if he reached his breaking point.
I was using rational in the economic sense, as in directed toward some end. If one believes that sacrificing oneself in an act of violent resistance will produce some good, then such an act is rational in the economic sense, while also irrational in the common sense, because such a belief is inconsistent with reality.
If one’s goal is to stay alive and take care of what you value as best as you can, then choosing violent resistance is irrational. This explains the resignation and passivity Eric describes. For most people, the rational choice is to go along.
Rationality, in the sense you mean, either never existed or is long gone.
Jeremy, I don’t believe this country will survive as well as most of the people. What is left will be something else, hopefully better for those alive. I only see things getting worse while I’m alive but have hope for humanity even if rational logic doesn’t support that hope.
The soviet union and the eastern bloc fell away when people just said no more. The Roman empire dissolved as the barbarians were a better deal and so on.
However the US fedgov has used scientific management and proved no later than 1860-1865 the brutality of its rule. I can see those who run fedgov using nukes against cities and states that rebel against it. I don’t think they have the courage or the morals of the old commie leadership that knew their con was done with and either walked away or adapted to the new reality. The commies could see riches for adapting and maybe that’s why it went as bloodless as it did. people in fedgov won’t have such obvious motivation to do good.
I’m in the process of splitting up with my wife of 15 years… which really sucks. It’s not what I want, but that doesn’t matter. The one upside is I could just walk away from my whole life and start over. But the truth is I like my life – and it’s a smoking, burned out crater to be here by myself.
Me and Captain Morgan, that is.
Sorry to hear that it didn’t work out. Hopefully you are able to get back on course soon.
Yeah, me too.
A tough year.
I tried my best – had hoped for the best. But sometimes, you just can’t fix a thing.
I have Swiss citizenship (and a passport). While Switzerland isn’t a Libertarian utopia, it is a much more civilized place than the place the United States is becoming. I may end up there.
I’m brushing up my Deutsch, which is less-than-grammatical. I can make myself understood – and be understood – but it’ll take more than that, if it comes down to brass tacks!
“I’ve never considered the moral or ethical implications of mandatory child vaccinations. While I am suspicious of the potential ‘safety’ of some vaccines (such as the link between some vaccines and autism, for example), what happens when a child is not vaccinated and infects another child? Have they not caused injury to another individual at that point?”
Now that you’re aware that some others don’t hold with the idea of mandatory vaccination, or that vaccination itself is a myth, then you could start reading on the subject. Here’s one question:
If vaccines are actually effective, how does an unvaccinated person become a danger to others, if those others are vaccinated?
98% of Somali women have had their clit removed. A traditional circumciser using a blade when they are 8 years old or so. Procedures include removal of the clitoral hood and clitoral glans; removal of the inner labia; and removal of the inner and outer labia and closure of the vulva.
A small hole is then cut in the vulva to allow passage of urine and menstrual fluid. A clan leader can later authorize the vagina being opened for intercourse and opened further for childbirth. 200 million women in 30 countries have had this done to them.
Religion is worse than politics.
Same thing as I see it. Both require the use of propaganda for control.
In some class I had in college in the 60’s, maybe some sort of civics or govt. course, a young teacher(not professor, they kept their cowardly asses covered)asked why we needed censors. Not surprisingly it was females who tried to make a case for it. I took the stance that censorship of anything was just taking rights away from everyone. Gee, did I ever make some religious gals mad. They couldn’t even fathom how badly they were brainwashed. Hell, if I could present a front(real, or imagined by them)that would have them shedding their panties for me, that was proof enough they had swallowed the blue pill. Thanks sweetheart, I’ll call you(or not….depending on my options…..which I hope precludes that call).
Some women can understand men are mainly just grazing. It’s like the largest smorgasbord you can imagine and we want a taste of whatever looks tasty At That Moment. Tomorrow is a different day and our taste buds will change and we’ll want something else. A few women were that way too and a lot of that was how well the propagandizing had worked on them.
Eric, Islam is not a religion, it’s a primitive system of government.
Hi Ed, et al,
Islam is an ideology. It is one that hopes to control cultures through implementing “sharia law” into the governments of various countries….already has in parts of the world. Probably a good bit more violent than the current implementations of Christian ideology, but not moreso that old school JudeoChristian implementations. That said, scares the hell out of me that the current crop of millenials wish to adopt the ways of Islam…..I’d speculate that cognitive dissonance would have occurred, but that implies cognition and I’ve seen scant evidence of that in the younger generation….see, public school was successful after all….
Ditto. Virulent faith (of any flavor) scares me to the marrow. Down that road lies Horror (cue Marlon Brando’s Col. Kurtz voice) and Moral Terror.
You cannot reason with such people. They feel. They believe. And they are absolutely certain. They live in a Manichean, black-white universe, with themselves as sole possessors of “truth” (based on their feelings). To disagree is an affront.
You are either “with them.” Or you are an enemy to be converted or killed.
If that mindset (that lack of mind) becomes ascendant, the lights go out, perhaps for a long time. Perhaps forever.
Tor, that’s population control as much as anything. The rate of death from those circumcisions is quite high due to infection of possibly both the reproductive tract and the urinary tract and plain old sepsis.
It’s something different to be sure. I wonder if they have consent of the governed. Maybe they find what our women have to do abhorrent. Very different from us. Different values. Could maybe use some engineers to fix the land. Where do you start.
The French are the most down to earth colonizers. Theyd let the Indian in America into their forts even. I wonder what happened there. Maybe I’ll head to Big Easy to do some research.
I’d fight for a spot on the ride to Big Easy if it was remotely close to what it was 50 years ago, best damned food I ever had and damned good folks too. Those coonasses are the best.
Gary is a cosplay libertarian. Wearing a Nazi costume doesn’t make this kid a national socialist.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=19b_1369278475. The national blue pill scheme has no place for a libertaria. Only a fiscally responsible socially inclusive despot allowed to exist for Trump vote poaching purposes.
Maybe if he plays at it long enough, he’ll truly grok laissez faire and voluntarism. And then take the red pill and see beyond the contrived matrix he currently plays a part in. He’s a westworld bot executing script in a tourist trap libertarianworld.
I ‘m in a dream. Dreams are the mind telling stories to itself. Westworld Matrix.
“I ‘m in a dream. Dreams are the mind telling stories to itself.”
Or, as Riddley Walker said, “Eusa’s head is dreaming us all”.
I first did the Nolan Chart/Smallest Quiz around the time Saigon fell. I scored true statist.
I was 14, in military school, and was truly disappointed that I was not going to be able to go to Vietnam, meet strange new people and kill them.
I really wanted to “see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill.”
Ten years later, after a stint in the military and quite a few magic mushrooms later, I took the quiz again. I had become one of those librarians.
As Mark Scott used to say, I “didn’t know that I didn’t know.”
I checked wiki for the numbers on the quiz. As of 2013, less than 10% of the general population of this great prison nation had been exposed to it. Detroit Edison has had more exposure with their advertising and they are the only game in town.
When was the last time you received a Nolan Chart in the mail?
Ever see one as a pop up ad?
Along side a clover sticker on the back of a car?
On a reusable shopping bag? (After all, what is the reason you have those filthy, bacteria spreading things?)
They say 90+ percent of what we know about any given product is directly from advertising.
While much of the discussion centers around debating crucial issues like big L or little l, the mental masturbation spent listening to the Harmonica Virgins might be better utilized.
After all, librarians became the obsolete man back when Rod Serling was still alive. Do you really want libertarians to become the obsolete party?
” And they all came back, shook my hand, and we had a great time on the
Bench talkin’ about crime, mother-stabbin’, father-rapin’.
Kind of related, I’ve often wondered why we humans think we need leaders. We seem to have this mass delusional belief that we need others to tell us what to do, and that if we are leaderless we might just walk around continually bumping into things, not quite knowing what to do next. Personally, I think it is just a sell job perpetuated by those who want to lead, who have the power and want to keep the power. This is one of the ideas of libertarianism, as I understand it, that really is attractive to me. The idea that we, everyone, is responsible for only their life. And as much as we may disagree with what another person believes or does, as long as it does not injure or force me to do or believe the same, that is their right. I will as usual be voting no on all of the propositions that will increase regulation and government. I will not be voting for any new leaders.
Yup. Every candidate for national office brays about the leadership they’re offering. Where have I heard that term before….?
Whatever happened to promising to defend people’s rights? Not to Free Stuff. Their actual rights. To not be registered, managed, monitored, taxed, ordered, catalogued, regimented?
To be left free to live their lives?
I wish Johnson were just slightly smarter. Then perhaps he might be able to articulate a Libertarian point of view.
“I wish Johnson were just slightly smarter. Then perhaps he might be able to articulate a Libertarian point of view.”
If Johnson were “smarter” he would have spent his considerable media capitol lambasting the debate fraud instead of dismissing Trump, and his supporters, as racist, coddling Bernie supporters (most of whom will vote for Hillary, while the “diehards” will vote for Jill Stein, or not vote at all) or tacitly endorsing Hillary as more qualified than Trump.
Imagine if, to Trump supporters he had said, “I understand your anger at the system, and I agree. However, Trump does not offer a real alternative”. Instead, he insulted them, as well as libertarians and potential Republican apostates.
He accepted the absurd CPD criteria and simply begged to be involved. This strategy was doomed to fail. Too bad, even as a lame exponent of the libertarian point of view, breaking the debate duopoly would have been a positive outcome. He had a chance and he blew it.
When I was a kid, I always thought my school’s principal was kind of an idiot. Now that could be simply written off as a kid who didn’t really like school all that much. But a few years ago, I ended up doing a project with him. My childhood assessment of him was 100% spot on. He is an idiot. An idiot with a PHD, he is a nice guy, don’t get me wrong, but still an idiot.
But he was the “leader” of that school for over 20 years! And is well respected in the community. No wonder the education establishment is the way it is, it’s probably full of guys like him. People seem to flock to leaders, even when they can barely run their own lives, let alone run other peoples.
“idiot with a PHD,”
What can one expect from someone who has never left the campus.
My friends get really pissed when I refer to them as professor.
I can remember a time in west Tx. when politicians were barely tolerated. When one would begin to spout people would begin muttering oaths. And then the yankees came…..en masse…….
Of course you’ll always have someone, some stupid person who for reasons of stupidity think they know more than others…..and a few stupid people who’ll kiss their ass looking for a handout. If you’ll notice, and I’m sure everyone here has, when free shit is mentioned, there are people who step forward and people who step back and the ones who step back rightly know they’re going to pay for that free shit to those worthless turds.
And then that damn yankee GW came along and convinced otherwise sane Texans that we was both “American greatness” incarnate and a “real” Texan.
Jeremy, we had already been overcome with yankees by the time GW arrived and too many had swallowed the blue pill and a huge debt when Anne Richards was guv. We’d already been through the bs of RR and that was bad though the press favored hell out of him. I had a yankee boss who got the entire dept together so he could rally round the flag when RR had “his day” in war via Grenada. If I hadn’t needed a job I would have decked the SOB. When he paused I asked if the meeting was over. We had a stare down and he said yes. I walked out so fast everyone else was sitting in their chairs. Later, one guy said “I thought you and old Bob were gonna end up on the floor”. Ol Bob was a real politician himself so he checked himself and later threatened to fire me in front of a room full of people. I replied to him “Go ahead, I was looking for a job when I got this one”. I turned on my heel and headed out the door in effort to do my job and not punch the SOB. When I came back he was gone and everybody else in the building were huddled up and watched me come in as one. Then the smirks started and every one of them said as they could get me alone they thought Bob was going to get what was coming to him…..and then Wasn’t I worried? Sheesh you fuckin sheep, grow some and quit being spectators, find a voice when it counts. Unfortunately, years later not a one of them had and never would I suspect. I left in ’88…..time for a move.
Hell, I was an ex-trucker(temporarily)and every dipshit in the world had tried to intimidate me for some reason or other. BTW, I’m not completely opposed to violence but uphold the NAP. It’s the reason I keep my tire bumper handy……2 feet of 3/4″ rebar, not one of those DOT safe wooden POS.
When I talk to most people I know about these things, they look at me like I’m the village idiot, or they just smile and nod. This goes for people in my family. Government is so pervasive today, and the brainwashing so complete, that articulating ideas that reject government authority, and leadership, just cannot be processed by most. And here we are with The Donald and Hillary, both of whom will do anything to become leader.
One of my bro-in-laws who lives in Austin, TX, told me he voted for Johnson the other day.
Said Trump and Clinton were extremists.
Is he right that Libertarians are the New Centrists. Does seem kind of plausible actually.
In 2012 I voted for him, cause my wife and galpals insisted I drive them to a voting cubicle and vote with them.
What can you do? It’s a two party system. What are you going to do? Throw your vote away.
Ah ha ha ha ha drool drool glare at all those delicious mundanes you’ve subjugated for an eventual gourmet of war….
Homer Economicus: The Simpsons and Economics. Tom Woods Radio.
Tor, if city here but I voted Libertarian in ’08. Since there’s no way to know what would have happened if they’d won there’s no need to speculate. Just the same though, Libertarian votes rose from .7% to 7%. Had that happened again in any following elections I’d hope things would be different now…..and no way to know how or to what extent once again. But it was a thought and one that the R’s and D’s had too since they went well out of their way as did the MSM to smear that party in every way they could. I like the thought of 70% Libertarian votes. Nope, it’s not the ideal but it would most likely beat hell out of what we’ve had and will have.
I like the idea of not voting. Of choosing anarcho capitalist purity. But that would leave me a life as a recluse and monk.
I have nothing but respect and admiration for any NAP heroes who choose such an austere lonely existence.
I have never met a single person who speaks about Ayn Rand or anyone featured on Lew Rockwell.
I met a Ron Paul guy in the 2008 primaries. But I was too sickened by the some Santorum schmuck who was there spouting off while we caucused in the hopeless blue state wasteland that is Las Vegas, a suburb of the deep blue LA area in point of fact.
Also embarassing that the company I work for did subcontracting in the precinct, which was also a child school prison. It was busted badly dilapidated and would have looked convincing as a backdrop for any Stalin era Soviet institution or play bringing the novel 1984 to life.
I’ll hang with Trump lovers. Hilary / Bernie union guys. The mark of an intellect. It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Translation of Aristotle and repopularized by Objectivists.
I’m not an adherent of the Piekoff sect of Objectism, but this seems mostly true.
I’ve been thinking about that idea for some time now. I’m pretty sure the main reason is because we humans like to conserve energy. If we all just let this guy (or gal) tell us what to do, and as long as they don’t lead us into a firestorm, we’re generally OK with it. Otherwise, we’d have to think about what to do and where to go. Why do people flock to resorts where they can sit around on the beach and get drunk for a week? Is there life any better afterward? Or go to Las Vegas, so that they can spend a weekend standing in line, waiting along with everyone else to hand their hard earned money to the house? When just a few miles away there’s natural beauty and awe inspiring vistas? Well, because the “sexy” woman on TV told them they’ll have fun.
Politicians never lead anyone anywhere, except the slaughterhouse. Most of the popular presidents just got out in front of an already moving crowd, quick to take credit for what had already transpired. Or they played up the popular opinion, and instead of letting the situation play out, stick their nose in and push the issue. Then they take credit for whatever advancement is made. Off the top of my head I’m thinking of the Internet, which really had nothing to do with government aside from the breakup of the (government mandated) Bell system monopoly. I suppose Uncle could take credit for promoting TCP/IP, but one of the reasons we have so much trouble with security is because of TCP/IP’s assumption of network harmony, so I guess I’ll give them credit on that one…
Respectfully, what this column does is attempt to “write out” of the libertarian movements those who are less ideologically pure than oneself — ironically, by someone who until quite recently was urging people to vote for Donald Trump.
What you describe as the only kind of libertarian is in fact an anarchist libertarian — which, even among those dedicated libertarians who attended the most recent national convention, amount to possibly high single digit representation, based on how poorly the pure anarchist Darryl Perry fared there.
In fact, most people start off being indoctrinated so thoroughly in statism that it can take a very long time before they shed this ideological baggage and arrive at the state of libertarian purity that you advocated here in principle — though in practice you briefly, to my bewilderment, cheerlead for an obvious statist fuck slaver.
Kudos on coming to your senses, but Gary Johnson IS a libertarian on many issues, just not nearly enough for my anarchist taste.
Oh, and one last thing — many anarchists, including me, refuse to vote at all unless “None of the above” is on the ballot, since otherwise we are left with voting for flawed very small-l libertarians like GayJay.
I hear you, Jim. But I do think there are some basics of any “faith” one must accept in order to be considered a proper member of the “faith.”
A Christian, for example, has got to believe in the divinity of Christ. He may not agree with various interpretations of scripture. But on Christ, there must be agreement. If not, the professed “Christian” isn’t really – no matter his insistence that he is.
I can’t see that Johnson is a Libertarian because he does not proceed from the NAP. And without the NAP, you have small-government-ism.
Johnson wouldn’t even qualify as an 18th century liberal (a Jeffersonian).
He is a utilitarian with social liberal authoritarian instincts. He approves of using government force to compel a bakery (IIRC) to make a cake for a gay couple’s wedding. Such a stance is as un-Libertarian as it gets, just about.
Is he preferable to the other two?
But that doesn’t make him a Libertarian.
On Trump: I initially supported him because I thought he might put a stop to the wars, end Obamacare and neuter the neocons who have taken over the GOP. But he no longer talks about ending these endless wars, or Obamacare – and has surrounded himself with neocons ands Bible-beaters (Pence) and, on top of that, is an inarticulate stumblebum and a bloated, entitled bully!
“Respectfully, what this column does is attempt to “write out” of the libertarian movements those who are less ideologically pure than oneself — ironically, by someone who until quite recently was urging people to vote for Donald Trump.”
Even I felt the sting from that one.
At some point, a line does have to be drawn. I don’t see how anyone who does not base his moral principles on the NAP can claim to be a Libertarian. I do not reject practical politics. I am speaking in terms of principles here. I would have voted for Trump not because he is even a shadow of a Libertarian but because I thought – initially – he might at least repeal Obamacare (which I believe to be more of a threat to our liberty – what’s left of it – than the income tax) and might not start WW III. But I would never call him a Libertarian. And neither is Johnson. They both countenance the use of force to impose what they believe to be the “right” course of action for both the collective and the individual. Any person who advocates such – who does not reject such in principle – cannot be a Libertarian, in my view.
They can call themselves whatever they like. But they are coercive collectivists to one degree or another – by definition.
You’re conflating caplital-L Libertarians (the party) versus the little-l libertarians, which is a philosophy. Capital-L Libertarians are a party whose views shift over time, just like the term “liberal” meant something very different a hundred years ago.
One thing I’ve noticed about libertarians, is that they’re always at each others’ throats about who’s the “real” libertarian, when in reality, people who accept that label are already more similar than not – all believe in the end goal of minimizing government and coercion. It takes a fairly open mind to go against the Republican/Democrat status quo and accept a politically marginalized label based on principle.
Gary Johnson is not a voluntarist libertarian, for sure, which is what you describe in your view as the ideal libertarian. He is what Republicans were like during their small government, anit-war days. This makes him a far better choice than a corrupt war harpy or a crazy narcissist – if you’re the sort who votes.
I’ve always been torn about voting, since it encourages the bastards, as George Carlin said. The first presidential vote I cast was in 1996 after I was naturalized, and it was also my last, since I felt dirty and guilty of something that felt improper after doing it. Why should my dude try to tell someone else what to do? Bah! This time around, I think I may vote for Johnson, not because he has any chance of winning, but to inflate his popular vote tally, perhaps getting his party FEC funding to spread their ideas. We are in desperate need of more ideas mixed into the current government propaganda we’re seeing, just to dilute the evil that’s being spread around.
So, please, libertarians, quit trying to figure out who’s the most “pure” and do something to fight this despotism that we’re now living with. Vote for an imperfect Libertarian if you choose, but also rather than pontificating, try to resist government encroachment on the local level, try to get local libertarians elected, speak up at city council meetings to oppose new laws and regulations. I live in a super-liberal (I would say deluded eco-communist) city, and try to do these things. These busybodies who want to rule our lives are, by definition, the people who show up at these accursed fascist meetings, and the opposing voice needs to be present too.
Hi Opposite Lock,
Voting, on libertarian grounds, is a complex issue. The decision to cast a single vote in a Federal election is clearly not immoral, as that action causes no direct harm. On the other hand, it seems equally obvious to me that voting, in the abstract, lends legitimacy to an illegitimate system. Personally, I advocate not voting, even for a Ron Paul. However, I attach no moral condemnation to those libertarians who decide otherwise. So, I agree with you: if you are inclined to vote, a vote for Johnson is better than a vote for Trump, Hillary, et al.
However, the demand for “purity”, that you seem to deride, is essential if we wish to educate people about the inherent illegitimacy of coercive government systems. Until a critical mass of people recognize this, “we” will always be fighting over who should rule, rather than whether anyone should rule. The PTB recognize this, which is why “Democracy” is almost universally pushed by the elite class.
My point was that libertarians bicker amongst each other about who’s a real libertarian, and end up fragmenting themselves as a political group – the politics of NAP are still politics, and they’re not going to be implemented without a push to do that. Fighting for something within the system doesn’t preclude fighting for it outside of the system too. You can try to convince people that the system is illegitimate, while at the same time still trying to make it less totalitarian, kind of like hedging bets.
My personal views are pretty far down the libertarian hole – I don’t believe in the notion of state, borders, taxes, or even the constitution – my hero is Lysander Spooner. I’m just dismayed that all my libertarian friends bicker about someone who’s not a pure enough libertarian is trying to change some things but not others. It’s like the saying that “perfect is the enemy of the good”.
I think we mostly agree. However, bickering about who is a “real libertarian” should not be seen as a problem as it promotes dialogue and education. The “politics of NAP” is an oxymoron because “politics”, as commonly understood, embraces coercive government, which inherently violates the NAP. If, by politics, you mean the best way of engaging the “polity”, I agree.
I am routinely accused of being a statist apologist because I don’t believe that voting is immoral, and of being a naive purist because I don’t advocate voting to prevent the “lesser evil”. Of course, “fighting for something within the system doesn’t preclude fighting for it outside of the system too”. However, “purity” (or principle) is important because, as William Lloyd Garrison correctly observed, “gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice”. I have reservations with libertarians who advocate that we should, for pragmatic reasons, advocate the “lesser evil”, but, I do not condemn them. I do, however, have a problem when the “lesser evil” is presented as the ideal.
I sadly believe that Gary Johnson had destroyed the definition of what Libertarianism means for young millennials or newcomers in general.
I don’t think most of the public had even heard of Libertarianism before this election, certainly not amongst my “group”, and even I was only versed in it for maybe a year before this election cycle began. If I had not been already familiar a little in the principles of Libertarianism, I might have fallen for the image Gary Johnson portrays (kind of a watered down less vile version of globalism posing as an outsider), but since I haven’t, I’m frankly enraged at how quickly the party has become hijacked and frankly, destroyed.
I sometimes think it has to be deliberate. Why did the LP allow this Republican to represent “Libertarians”? The only answer that makes sense is to discredit Libertarianism.
Hi AJ and Eric,
The LP is dominated by “pragmatarians”, convinced that the route to liberty can be achieved only by electoral success. Thus they promote recognized, establishment people like Barr and Johnson in the vain hope that they will gain a foothold within the system. Then, at some future point, “real” libertarians may win. This strategy is absurd. After all, why would any rational person get excited about a slightly less awful republican, who has no chance of winning.
Rothbard and others believed the party should use politics as an educational opportunity, and wanted “pure” libertarian positions to be promoted in the hope that the “remnant” may be awakened. I don’t think the modern LP seeks to discredit Libertarianism, just that they don’t understand what Libertarianism is. I know Johnson, and he is a pretty decent guy. However, he is completely uninterested in learning anything beyond his gut instincts.
Too bad, as he had an opportunity this election cycle to hammer home the corrupt stranglehold that the two parties maintain over ballot access and debate requirements. He could have spent most of his media time pointing out that the CPD, a private corporation created by the two parties, for the sole purpose of eliminating competing voices, makes a mockery of “Democracy” (not that I support democracy). Instead, he adopted the Clinton strategy of dismissing Trump supporters as deplorable racists. A strategy doomed to fail, as the Trump supporters who are genuinely racist don’t care and the rest are offended and will just harden their resolve to support Trump.
Johnson turned down an opportunity to “debate” Hillary and Trump via Democracy Now’s “extending the debate” program, proving he was not serious about promoting Libertarianism.
The very concept of electoral politics should be anathema to any conscientious libertarian. Elections, by their very nature, represent the tyrannical imposition of the will of the majority over the minority, something that flies in the face of the NAP, which is –or should be– the foundation of true libertarianism. All of that said, it’s impossible for me to imagine how a “Libertarian Party” is even a philosophical possibility. Thus it makes sense that the likes of Bob Barr and Gary Johnson would cynically use a political party like the LP for their own political gain. How can you demand ideological purity from a political party whose (supposed) foundational ideology is fundamentally opposed to the very concept of electoral politics?
I ran across this when I was, quite reluctantly, elected the Chair of the Hawaii LP. I felt wildly conflicted about encouraging anyone to run for office or vote, instead of doing something more meaningful with their time.
I wouldn’t say that the foundation ideology of libertarianism is opposed to electoral politics — you have to be part of very small hardcore, 100/100 on the Nolan chart anarchist fringe to get to that point.
“was, quite reluctantly, elected the Chair of the Hawaii LP.”
As in that place on Kapiolani?
If you couldn’t kick the asses of the other three or four members…
Two scoops of rice, Mac salad, and one Samoan brah.
Good grinds for some lickins.
Garens ball-bearins Hawaii get ono-licious grinds, but my god you couldn’t pay me enough to go back. So happy to have left that corrupt shithole of a rock.
At least no license for to be Mr. Plow brah.
BTW IMHO nothing ono for to grind here.
I’d give my left nut for a fucking coney dog.
“I’d give my left nut for a fucking coney dog.”
No longer in Detroit?, gotta make your own. Just add a little organ meat to your homemade chili for that authentic taste. Find a good natural casing dog and you’re all set. Better than giving up your left nut.
My buddy, who lives by the Big Mac, but still has an office across from Dick Headle’s torn down building at 12 and Farmington, tells me the secret is yellow mustard.
He claims O’Nasty’s, American, and LaFayette all have yellow chili. As opposed to red tomato chili sauce.
And I’d give both the left and right for two on one loose chili only. (As opposed to the fucking rice with everything here.)
Not sure what is meant by “yellow chili” but I don’t doubt that mustard is used. Certainly, tomato based chili is not authentic. But, I’m pretty sure that the basic recipe is an all meat (no beans or tomato) based chili simmered with red chili powder, onions, garlic and other spices, that includes some organ meat. I live in NM and often make my own red chile sauce (chile, stock, onions, garlic and bacon fat). When I want Coneys I take some of this sauce, add ground beef, a little ground beef heart and simmer until tender and thick.
I can’t claim that it’s authentic, but it certainly meets the need better than a “chili dog” from anywhere other than Detroit.
Who the fuck puts rice on a “loose”.
Rice with everyfuckingimaginablething.
Breakfast at McDonald’s is rice, eggs, Portuguese sausage or SPAM, and coffee.
I made beef stroganoff for dinner (a big to do, maybe 18 people) at a friends house. His wife let me have the run of her kitchen for the whole deal and stayed within earshot, even helped cut onions.
As I start boiling water for five pounds of noodles, I tell her we’ll be good to go in a few.
She comes in the kitchen and says, “Nobody is gonna eat that shit” as she pulls out THREE electronic rice cookers, “turn off the water, I’ve got it from here.”
These people put the noodles on top of giant piles of rice, then the meat sauce. Good grinds they told me.
Later on she tells me that in Japan they don’t call meals breakfast, lunch, and dinner. It is morning rice, mid day rice, and evening rice.
So yes, Jeremy, coneys (from bottom to top) are rice, bun, hotdog, then coney sauce.
I moved to a new place back in June and declared it a rice free zone. Her husband has been over at least every Sunday for breakfast (and beer). She, on ther other hand, has never seen the new place.
But she loves my French toast. So when her drunk ass husband skateboards home every Sunday, he takes her some bacon, sausage, and French toast. She then puts that on top of a pile of rice and covers the whole mess with syrup.
It is just SO wrong Jeremy, so utterly fucking wrong.
Haha, I feel for you, but in a different way. I’m half Asian myself (surprise, being from Hawaii), but lived most of my life on the “mainland” where I had to import my rice. None of that Uncle Ben’s Mexican half plastic crap. Being away from good rice and fish though really was hard for me the first little bit, so now I keep 200 lb. stored in sealed containers, ready for use when the apocalypse occurs.
I’ll admit though, the only things I like in Hawaii are actually the fresh fish markets and Japanese restaurants. I can not stand how full everything else is with grease, salt, MSG, spices, fat, and all kinds of heart clogging garbage. It’s why my entire family is over 200, some 350, while I sit “heavy” at 140, usually 133-135 range. Hawaii is such a disgusting place with over consumption and laziness. I know it’s not PC, but god damn I hate how slow everything is over there and how there’s nothing but big blue ocean around you and nowhere to go, no one to talk to “intelligently”.
Okay rant over. Lastly, I’ll correct you on the Japanese though. Yes, gohan means “rice”, but is used synonymously with “meal”, in English. i.e., I can eat “afternoon rice” in Japan, and still have it be a Big Mac and fries, no rice necessary. 🙂
I agree. My journey to anarchism began with trying to answer this question, posed by Auberon Herbert: “By what right do men exercise power over each other”? I concluded that no such right can exist, it can only be asserted, falsely, by force. “Democracy”, in the absence of “divine right”, is the means by which the people accept being ruled.
“Elections, by their very nature, represent the tyrannical imposition of the will of the majority over the minority.”
No, they legitimize the tyrannical will of the minority over everyone else. Elections do not represent the will of the “majority”, just the preference, of those who voted, for a particular candidate. There is no such thing as the “will of the majority”. Like Rousseau’s assertion of a “general will”, such a concept is comprehensible only within a framework of accepting that some have the right to rule others.
Of course, a “Libertarian Party” is oxymoronic if their intention is to seize power in order to rule others. But, if the intention is to use the media exposure of the election circus to educate, that is completely legitimate. I cannot condemn those who choose this route (using a media generated political platform) in order to educate. After all, how many current anarchists were created by the, ostensibly, Statist Ron Paul.
I do not advocate voting or political activism (unless it is pointing out the injustice of political decrees). Whatever one’s goals, using one’s resources to directly achieve the goal is preferable to seeking a political “solution”. But what if one’s goal in supporting a particular candidate is not a “political solution” but education? I financially supported Ron Paul, not because I thought he could win, but because he had a platform to express ideas. As such, I was not seeking a political solution but an educational opportunity.
“He is what Republicans were like during their small government, anti-war days.”
And when were those? The first GOP president was A. Lincoln. Hardly considered either anti-war or small government.
Phillip the Bruce,
“The first GOP president was A. Lincoln.”
And without his image on 3.5 grams of copper plated zinc alloy, how would the nice policeman know if he should give you a ticket for defective equipment?
How ironic it is that I read your post with-in a few minutes of weighing the pennies in my pocket to sort them out. I save the ones which weigh 3.1 or 3.2 grams and I spend the rest. I also separate the wheat pennies from the others.
Only pre 1983 pennies weigh nearly “3.5 grams”. In midyear 1982 the copper in the pennies was debased. Modern pennies only weigh 2.6 grams.
I forgot to include a link: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/02/rebasing_the_pe.html
My bad. Thanks for the correction.
I’m guessing you find the scale easier to read than the date?
I also found it telling that the new penny is toxic if swallowed by the children.
A little different than coins that were natural antibiotics. I wonder if the new navy uses stainless instead of real silverware.
I used to be able to read the bottom line on the eye chart when I was younger. I still have great eyesight but I am far sighted. I am still able to read the dates on coins if I am using sunlight.
I use to sort them by date using reading glasses and artificial light. The problem was that 1982 pennies needed to be weighed in order to determine the copper content anyway, so I bought a coin scale which of course can weigh gold and silver coins as well.
Nowadays I simply look at the backside of the penny. If it has a shield on it, it immediately gets put into my leather squeeze pouch: https://www.amazon.com/Leather-Squeeze-Pouch-Purse-Marshal/dp/B00K315LYG/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1477439480&sr=8-2&keywords=leather+coin+purse+squeeze to be spent with other coins. Loose change I get from cashiers just gets dropped into my pocket for later sorting.
Bad as Gary J is, he is hardly the worst example of the LP putting a Republican on the ballot. Remember Bob Barr in 2008.
I voted LP once, in 1988.
“I sadly believe that Gary Johnson had destroyed the definition of what Libertarianism means for young millennials or newcomers in general.”
Yeah, but he’s just the latest in a long line of them. Every presidential election cycle, the LP trots out some asshole who makes newcomers think: “Shit. If that’s libertarianism, I’ll take mine rare.”
“Libertarians reject conditional custodianship as a species of slavery, equally immoral.
For this reason, they oppose all taxes in principle but in particular those levied against real estate – people’s homes and land – which are particularly odious because they effectively make it impossible to ever actually own and therefore, control, your land or home.”
Most people reject the idea that property taxes amount to slavery, they are mistaken. Years ago I read an article describing the collusion between the Debeers corporation and the South African government in order to force blacks to work in the diamond mines. Debeers had a problem: not enough people wanted to work the mines. Unwilling to offer wages that would attract voluntary workers, Debeers came up with a solution: petition the S.A. government to impose a property tax, payable only in money, on the livestock of nomadic black herders. The herders could not pay, as was well understood by the “authorities” when they imposed the tax. As a result, the herders were arrested and forced to work the mines, at a rate set by Debeers, in order to pay the tax; which, of course, was the true purpose of the plan all along.
You’ve got to admit that is a great plan for the forcers.
But then those folks being forced discovered that they could keister a gem or two.
The forcers solution to that particular dilemma gave way to two modern day pleasantries.
The TSA and the prostate exam.
Without those wonderful folks at DeBeers, planes would be falling out of the sky and untold numbers of old men would be up all night taking a leak.
Just like diamonds Jeremy, the TSA and a doctor’s desire to poke around in your ass, are forever.
In college in the late ’80s and through about 2005 or so, I was a lifetime member, supporter, and advocate of the Libertarian Party. Around 2005 I realized the Libertarian Party would never be able to change things within the system, but I still saw it as a gateway program for budding Anarchists – hey, it worked for me.
Then in 2008 came Bob “f’in” Barr – at that point I knew it was over. The Libertarian Party could no longer be the “Party of Principle” if the flagship candidate had none, or at least none that were libertarian principles. Which meant it was also useless as a gateway program, as no reasonable person wants to be associated with Bob “f’in” Barr or Gary “Feel The” Johnson.
Erik, I wrote my comment with only one showing and after I posted it there are now two comments mentioning Somalia. Truth is stranger than fiction.
I think I heard “the average person” t’other night on Pandora. They have a story telling part that sometimes has some interesting stories if you can stomach the guy who tells them…..don’t know if he’s gay but why sound like it? He’s going on about this lotto in Somalia you do online(2 computers in the country probably)and if you hit, then you have to go through this vetting process, etc. etc. He’s describing Somalia and how groups are killing one another and individuals left and right and then says “It’s total anarchy” and that ladies and gents prompted me to hit the “off” button. What a maroon!
Average Life span at birth Somalia 52 years
Average Life at birth in some inner neighborhoods of New Orleans 55 years
The problem with Somalia is biological and social and maybe it’s not a science exactly, but it’s a relatable analogy protocol that you can make some fairly good estimates off of.
Somalia life is different because of the race, culture, and behaviors of who lives there now. If a bunch of Chinese mass immigrated there, they’d at least still have their same 71 year life span there that they enjoy in China. Expat Chinese elsewhere live even longer.
Only 60 years ago the Chinese life span at birth was 45 and they were all so poor they faced starvation threats every winter.
Gary Johnson is more like a mutual fund than a human being. The more I tried to listen to him the more I think I won’t be investing in him. He was the best of 100 other incubated libertarians that were raised in his batch, but all his theoretical libertarian on paper words won’t likely translate into a single libertarian action, were he ever to hold some kind of political office at all.
Under French rule, Somalia (and Ethiopia) were agricultural powerhouses. After the end of the colonial era, the people went with communism and collectivist farming. Big mistake. Turns out, when no one owns the land, no one seems to want to work it. What was once called the breadbasket of Africa is now a desert waste because of soil mismanagement and bad ideas.
Now countries with no exports, no industry and no agriculture that couldn’t support a government if they tried they fell apart. I’m sure glad I don’t live there, but I’m also sure that the so-called warlords aren’t out to kill and steal everything from everyone, because if the did they’d quickly run out of people.
One could argue that there’s a reason why the people in the area hasn’t been able to form a democratic government. They’ve been “led” for so long that they don’t know any other way. Because they expect someone to tell them what to do, and they expect to have any gains they make to be confiscated, they just put up with all of it. That’s where a lot of the US is, people are fed just enough to survive, but not enough to prosper. We productive people tolerate a certain amount of wealth transfer to maintain a modicum of order. But at some point (we’re dangerously close to it now), more people will want to be led and fed. Then we’re all finished.
That is actually a good point about Somalia not being able to afford the “luxury” of a “government”. There is no economic activity for the government to sponge off of. Therefore a government of any kind cannot be.
And your right, people have been out of the decision making process so long, they have no idea how to anymore. A colonist never listens to a native, and rarely teaches any processes. So it’s no wonder most want to try communism.
We are to that point with whole “communities” here in the good ol USA. The have a clue about how even basic economics works. The only thing they know, is that it doesn’t work for them. So all must be destroyed.
8, I’ve noticed that lots of people use the word anarchy in place of chaos. It’s an MSM thang, y’know.
All the humans I have met are either social predators or social prey depending on the circumstance. Some are 50/50, some are 90/10. Some began life mostly as prey and as they matured and wisened they became mostly predatory.
There are countless blue pill schemes that claim to transcend or avoid this red pill reality. But all of the ones I have investigated. As soon as you start investigating and testing the algorithms and protocols of the “peaceful” system, you start to see the predatory means that yield the seemingly peaceful ends.
I choose to be red pilled and accept my socially predatory nature. And more challengingly, try to admit the ways and times that I am the social plunder of other better predators who collude or individually outcompete me and make me into their prey.
I mainly use deception and stealth to project a blue pill persona in my everyday life, but for many years now, my red pill inner self is the “true me.”
I don’t mean I’m a cannibal predator obviously. But mean rather the 1920s coined meaning of the Latin praedator (‘plunderer,’) from praedat- ‘seized as plunder.
Aggression is an adaptive response to predation. Because there is everywhere still predation, including even my mild form of negotiating and misleading certain “prey” in the arena of the workplace, businessworld, and social networking. It may be difficult and unlikely that any significant life philosophy will provide the zero aggression many hold as their ideal in the near future.
In the animal kingdom I would say beavers and bonobos are two species that come a lot closer to zero aggression than anything humans have accomplished.
Johnson is no anarcho-capitalist. He’s so far removed from what most of us who call ourselves libertarian believe that our first reaction is to reject him outright. I’m sure many socialists and communists rejected Obama too, even though his past suggests he’s one of them. But they all voted for him, along with enough of the population to get him into office. Twice.
People aren’t ready for libertarian thinking. Talk to a non-libertarian about a stateless society and they will have a visceral reaction, usually invoking Somalia. When you try to educate them as to the history of Somalia (something even many libertarians don’t know), you will likely be blown off with a “Yea, but still.” The folks in the ivory tower down in Auburn don’t seem to get that.
If nothing else, maybe if Johnson gets enough attention a few more people will discover real libertarian thinking. Gotta start somewhere.
The problem is that Johnson sends people off in the wrong direction and gives people the wrong ideas. Most people are intellectually lazy. They accept what ever is spoon fed to them.
Libertarianism will lose so long as government has the schools because people take what is spoon fed to them. To explain our view point means we first have to cut through layers and layers of conditioning. So it takes paragraphs while a statist can utter a few words and the people just feel it and cheer.
Ron Paul does a far better job encouraging curiosity by being true.
Evidently Rand was giving the school his entire attention while being deaf to his father. That’s just a damn shame.
Ayn Rand (voiced by John Galt) started out by exclaiming A=A, a radical thought. There are many blatantly false “facts” and cognitive disonance when it comes to politics in this country. Until we get past that fact, there’s no point in trying.
The Daily Show, while John Stewart was host, was constantly high in the rankings for late night TV. Most of his act was just playing clips of the insane things coming out of politican’s mouths. Yet when anyone came along with a truly different idea (such as RP), he quickly fell in line with the establishment. That’s what libertarians are up against. No one likes the current system, but no one wants to change it either. Until there’s an A=A moment that the masses are willing to see, nothing is going to change.
This is exactly why I harp on principles as the basis for arguing any point – rather than utilitarian arguments. If theft is acknowledged to be morally indefensible, then all theft is morally indefensible. If we own ourselves, then it follows… and so on.
Rand’s A is A stuff was good; she lost a lot of cred, though, when she proved to be authoritarian control freak as vile as any “liberal”!
The folks in the ivory tower down in Auburn don’t seem to get that.
Yes. A VERY big impediment to the “evangelization” (for lack of a better term) of libertarianism has been that the people who claim to be its ideological custodians (not gonna mention names, as we all know who they are), spend most of their time preaching to the choir and ignore the Joe and Jane Sixpacks who just might embrace libertarian ideals if they could be presented with them in a way in which they are relevant to “the little guy.” So far, however, the ideological guardians seem to view the little guy as unworthy of consideration, swine before whom pearls are cast (“little guy” = loser/statist/under-achiever). I’m not ready to say that this is a conscious attitude on these folks’ part, or even an accurate reflection of their attitudes, but I can see how the usual sources of libertarian philosophy and wisdom can come across this way to an outsider.
Since you didn’t name any names, I’ll throw out a few:
Walter Block, the most tedious, insufferably repetitive and opaque of the lot of Libertarian philosophy icons.
Hans Hermann Hoppe, a nice guy, but also opaque and repetitive in his use of language. Those are two of the better known names. The ones who made me want to punch them out because of their sneering, condescending attitudes toward newcomers were some of the primary candidates I met at straw polls during presidential election years. They are pretty forgettable, so I don’t remember full names for all of them (Rick Tompkins was one in ’96), but the ones who pissed me off were the old line LP members, not the opportunists who came from outside the party to try to get on the ticket.
Well said, Eric. Now if we can just get the average person to understand this, we might get somewhere. I won’t hold my breath.