White men suck, am I right? I mean think of it. Hitler. Stalin. Kristen Stewart. What did they have in common? That is right… Is it any wonder most libertarians are white men? I think not. Which raises– no begging allowed – the question. Why are all libertarians scumbags white men? Or, to rephrase, why are there not more women / higher melanin / pansexual / gender fluid libertarians? And the diverse ones we do get tend to be posting unsettling things… What does this say of men? What does this say of libertarianism? Who can address these burning questions? The answer to that is the second greatest philosopher of our times, the humble Pie. I will leave the identity of the greatest philosopher as an exercise for the comments.
It is pretty much a meaningless question for libertarians and a meaningful one just for those who use it as a line of attack. The group identity of libertarians is attacked as much or more as the ideology itself. It is as if people still think ad hominem is a valid argument, which is surprising, given the high quality public education that teaches the masses critical, independent though.
If significant part of white men were libertarians, maybe this would be more meaningful. But the vast majority of white men are not libertarians, just like the vast majority of <insert random group identity here>. Libertarian white men are an outlier among white men.
No the question is: why is the small percentage of libertarians from one group higher? Is the evil higher among white men? Or is it that they are less immersed in collectivist thought from a young age? Or maybe it is genetic. Who knows? Who cares? Well libertarian men who wish there were more libertarian wymmin care, but they are sad nerds.
Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired said a dead white Man. Most people do not reach political conclusions through a thorough process of thought and analysis. Not unlike religion, most people get their politics from their community, their social group, the schools and universities, the media. Otherwise you would not see, as in most countries, strongholds of this or that party in a region for generations. Often times, partisanship is more important than principle, as often seen in multiple psychology studies in which people are asked whether they support a certain policy, and the answer differs based on the party they are told suggested it. To be fair, that does not necessarily mean that libertarianism is right or that the mainstream ideologies are wrong (they are though) or that there is such a things as a right ideology. To be sure, it is possible to adopt some correct ideas by conformism.
Libertarianism, being a relatively small ideology, has little mainstream exposure, and most of it, being by rivals, is negative. It is quite clear educational and intellectual circles are dominated by people very hostile to libertarianism. So it requires either a strong natural instinct for liberty or a higher level of intellectual curiosity and effort to be exposed to libertarianism rather than the straw man versions that are more easily accessed. Usually a bit of both.
I know this because the first time I read something libertarian I was already in college while supporting the Nordic model, and my first thought was: this is nonsense. Just my natural curiosity and wish to understand things by reason led me to persevere and, in time, convert. Although, to be fair, I had a mean personal responsibility streak as a child. I remember there were times of heavy snow when high mountain trails were closed to hikers. Sometimes determined hikers kept on going, were inevitably stuck on the mountain and needed a dangerous and expensive nighttime rescue during a blizzard by the mountain rangers. I remember hearing one in a TV interview saying “yes we were told not to go and went anyway, but they couldn’t have just left us there to die” and I remember asking my parents why not, and not fully in jest. So there is that.
In the end it may be more an issue of values, of feelings, of instincts. And these, in most humans, can lean to collectivism, to choosing perceived safety over liberty, to wanting free shit, to envying those with more, to the need of order, to ban things they find icky or just to mimic the peer group. There is little room left for inquiry. After all, there ought to be a law.
Our favorite libertarian feminist who writes for a libertarian rag about sex a lot blames, among other things misogyny and sammich jokes for keeping the female touch away. Some of the more diverse group blame the fact that some libertarians are racists. Is this believable? Maybe to a point, but I don’t fully buy it.
To be sure, there are misogynist and racists everywhere in every party and ideology. Also plenty of weirdos. Are there more in libertarianism? As absolute numbers, I doubt it. But being in a smaller group, they stand out more and do not get lost in crowds. They may also be more open, because libertarianism as an ideology allows them to think and say whatever as long as they live and let live.
People who are libertarians believe in liberty, principles, small or no government, free association, non-aggression or self-ownership or negative rights or something similar. If your beliefs are solid, I cannot see how you are dissuaded from them by someone saying something you don’t like. You don’t see women renouncing a mainstream party and ideology despite plenty of sexual assaults committed by high ranking members of them, and all parties had such incidence. So why renounce libertarianism because one guy said something sexist? If you do, well your principles were not very strong in the first place.
Seeing libertarianism in bad light because some of its members is well, unlibertarian. To be fair, that does not mean that libertarians should not criticize racism and misogyny in their ranks, although this should be a general thing and apply universally, as these are some of the worst manifestations of collectivism and tribalism which plague peoplekind.
To be sure, there is a case to be made that people who are undecided, just dipping their toe, if you will, in the waters of liberty, can be turned off by some things and may need a bit of finessing to get them over the line. We do have many years of propaganda to overcome and heal. So yes, there is a case to maybe express opinions in a way others find appealing. You can say the same thing in different ways to get different reactions. But libertarians are a fairly diffuse, decentralized lot and it is hardly possible for them to police every asshole on the internet who claims to be one and somehow stop him from saying shit others find unappealing. So if people are turned away from libertarianism by random opinions on twitter, well there is no solution really. So might as well relax and have ourselves a nice sandwich and a cold beer. Also convince more models to be libertarian. Otherwise the terrorists win. And by that I do not mean kidnapping to attempt brainwashing. So you know, don’t do that.
Still Reading….
My word buffer overflowed, the process got aborted and I wandered down to the comments.
Thusly:
Whoever put guac on a BLT is far more evil than any libertarian could possibly be.
Pull that gross green rabbit food off and it looks tasty
/Lettuce, Blech
Lettuce is sort of an important ingredient in a BLT.
Just like vacuum is an important part of HVAC
Isn’t the C for “chiller”?
I think it looks delicious because I reach my opinions through reasoning.
The last time I had guacamole, it was… flavorless. I was more than a little annoyed.
You were annoyed by bland food?
Yes.
I bet what really happened is that they told you it was going to be bland, and it turned out not be bland enough for you.
You lose.
Mind. Blown.
I call UCS in the Glib’s Salsa it Forward program.
Guacamole is delicious you heathen!
I stand with Mad.
I can’t think of a savory food that wouldn’t be improved by the addition of guac…
Beef stew.
I’d try it. Come at me, bro.
They already have at least one common ingredient with the onions.
Beef stew, with a side of avocado toast.
Nearly all foods can be made better by the addition of either garlic or chocolate.
Riven – Please experiment and report.
Nephilium – Why not both?
https://blog.khymos.org/2007/04/16/triple-flavour-pairing-garlic-coffee-and-chocolate/
https://blog.khymos.org/2007/05/02/tgrwt-1-roundup-coffee-chocolate-garlic/
My Father’s-Day-Lunch-Picnic included BLT sandwiches with avocado in a pita. It was fantastic. Fight me.
*hits Leap with a tire iron from behind*
*Leap disappears a la Obi-Wan and returns as a spirit to guide a young mark hammill on the ways of putting guac on BLTs*
I see lots of protests outside movie The Last Guacamole. The feminists will not be happy with a story based on old Mark Hammill teaching a young lady how to make him some tasty sammiches with guac.
“The light sabers always burn the avocado. Use the Force instead.”
How can you hate guacamole? At worst I can see being ambivalent about it. It doesn’t exactly have a strong flavor, and as far as texture it’s pretty much in the egg salad range.
We already stand out in the crowd, being Weird makes Us more visible,
And I am sick of telling people I’m not a Libertarian politically, but from a moral perspective, NAP………
I have a serious authoritarian streak when it comes to Other people. I also realize I’m not the one in charge and I hate being told what to do.
I am a libertarian, because Fuck Off Slaver.
How much did Koch pay you to say that?
I got a handful of Buy-One-Get-One coupons on Quilted Northern tissue and Brawny paper towels.
Speaking on how libertarianism is shown in pop culture; I’m catching up on Fear the Walking Dead because there really isn’t anything to watch right now. And when they are at the Otto Ranch the old man says, “Most of the people here are libertarians.” Yet, their is a familial higherarchy, common food stocks, people just sharing their labor living on someone else’s property (which of course was stolen from Indians who they believe are subhooman because their brown). I do not see any libertarianism there.
You seem to expect Hollywood to actually know what libertarianism is.
The go to for libertarians in pop culture is Ron Swanson which gets some talking points right and occasionally the tone but is also a cartoon person, a clown nosed straw man. TOS did an article about libertarian TV shows and they put The Prisoner as the number one I don’t know if I would go that far but it definitely is up there.
Yes, Minister should be up there too. The writers got the Deep State right almost 40 years ago.
Second yes minister not that the show was libertarian but gave reasons to be
Is that streaming anywhere? I have heard nothing but great things about it from many people here.
I’ve watched just about every episode on Youtube.
I think maybe on Hulu. And maybe through a BBC subscription. Other than that, as CS notes below, most of them are on YT
BritBox (BBC/ITV’s streaming service) doesn’t have it.
I bought the DVDs years ago during an Amazon sale and ripped them to disk. One of the best investments I’ve made.
I was thinking of BBC’s iPlayer (which runs through their website) but it’s not available there either. It does run on Netflix in the UK which is probably why it’s not available anywhere else via streaming.
Favorite quote “The people demand we do something, this is something, so we should do it.”
I had a University Professor show our class these episodes – she saw Sir Humphrey Appleby as a protagonist. She ended up being a huge influence on my political beliefs, but not in the way she intended.
If accidentally libertarian counts, then The Wire should be included.
That show demonstrated how the crooks and the cops are all in the same business. The whole Hamsterdam thread was an awesome indictment of the drug war.
I always liked Firefly as a libertarian leaning show.
I always liked Firefly as an accidentally libertarian leaning show.
Yep. I always imagine Whedon re-watching it and muttering ‘goddammit’ over and over again.
Dollhouse wasn’t exactly a proggie delight either.
I think Whedon was rooting for the Alliance
I think Whedon probably actually has right leaning views, but doesn’t know they are right leaning because he knows all right leaning people are mouth breathers and he isn’t.
I vaguely remember some interviewer asking Whedon why all his heros came out as basically Libertarian. He replied he didn’t know, because he was solidly liberal.
And yet, the story-tellers always know that it’s about the little guy fighting the big, bad infrastructure which tends to be the evil government or its bureaucracy.
Tim Minear had some influence, no doubt, although he insists that all of the characters, libertarian or otherwise, where Whedon’s creations.
https://www.popmatters.com/138304-still-flying-an-interview-with-tim-minear-part-i-2496065630.html
SO is Buffy libertarian?
Well, this doesn’t seem to support gun control.
the story-tellers always know that it’s about the little guy fighting the big, bad infrastructure which tends to be the evil government or its bureaucracy.
These days, its more likely to be a corporation.
I think some of these people on the left deep down realize some of the problems of Big G but they need it to much for their ideology to admit it. It can appear in their art.
I think Babylon 5 has libertarian elements in it, although I wouldn’t say the show overall had a strong political position.
I just re-watched the final showdown lat night on B5. “Spoilers to Follow”
The Vorlon and Shadows represented the two sides of extreme ideology. Growth through conflict (only the strongest will/should survive) and growth through cooperation and order. The Alliance took the path of not needing Mom or Dad anymore and going without our gods and monsters to guide us. There could be some comparison made that the Shadows were a caricature of extreme objectivism and the Vorlons/Mumbari were ideal Socialists (everyone needs to help the collective good to ensure order).
did the show address economic issues? I dont remember. Lots of syfy shows imagine various social organisation without mentioning how they get their tech and space ships besides they just do.
The show was very anti Gov but never really mentioned commerce much. They had many plot lines in the later seasons about a coup within the earth’s gov and the conspirators using telepaths as spy’s. The head telepath was played very well by star trek’s Chekov.
I remember being blown away by the special effects at the time, but they are quite dated. I don’t think it takes anything away from the show however.
My memory of the impression I had of the show when it first aired was “that CG looks like crap, why are they using computer-generated images?”
It was a while ago, but my memory is that most economic issues were mercantilism – bargaining over trade permissions etc. Given that the show was focused on the realpolitik, this isn’t really a problem for the show.
Yeah, I was thinking of Sheridan persuading the Vorlons and Shadows AND First Ones to leave as well.
But I also think there was a casual depiction of commerce on the station as being normal and essential.
Yes there was, including one episode where merchandising was a significant subplot. In other episodes characters were shown having to worry about coming up with rent money and there were more than a few episodes that touched on trade agreements between species/nations including a rather comical one where Ivanova has to negotiate a trade agreement with a rather comically elitist race who seals all such agreements with sex. Oh in the first season there was a long running arc involving a labor dispute between the station and the dockworkers.
Economics was not a central part of the show but it was portrayed in a fairly realistic manner
This is true. I doubt it was intentional but there was a lot in B5 for libertarians to like
“is also a cartoon person, a clown nosed straw man”
Very well put. This is how conservatives/libertarians are portrayed on “right leaning” shows like The Ranch and Last Man Standing. The writers will have the characters on these shows parrot conservative talking points while making them sound like crazy old men.
Having not watched the show at all, I can’t say for sure, but nothing about nothing about family hierarchy, common food stocks, and shared labor in times of crisis / when markets are *incredibly small* strikes me as non-libertarian. Non-individualistic, maybe.
Yeah, libertarianism doesn’t carry a requirement that you don’t cooperate with people or share things. I’d argue that if you’re a night watchman type like I tend to be those things are functional requirements if you don’t want things to go all Mad Max on you. My take on libertarianism is that it’s about the absence of aggressive compulsion. The best libertarian or classical liberal success stories are the ones where a bunch of people get together to solve a problem voluntarily that would typically be handled by the government–bonus points if the government fucked it up to begin with.
+1 Domino’s Road Repairs
That’s the very example I had in mind.
My quibble is that the scenario is this: The end of the world came; this guy’s idea for restarting society is to have all these people live on his ranch, where he and his sons are the rulers, not by vote or merit, but because they are. Nobody else seems to have any influence, input or general knowledge on things like how outsiders are dealt with. The rulers seem to choose who does what, how food stores are managed and all guns are treated as property of the ruling family. Now if this is all voluntary, it is ok from a libertarian perspective I suppose; but I just don’t see the actual vast majority of libertarians choosing that arrangement.
We control the vertical! We control the horizontal!
Yet, their is a familial higherarchy, common food stocks, people just sharing their labor living on someone else’s property (which of course was stolen from Indians who they believe are subhooman because their brown).
Not inconsistent with libertarianism at all, except the last bit about stolen property. In fact, it sounds positively anarchismish.
I will require more photos of the chick in the green lingerie.
This is why…
…there are no…
…hitlers…
…in my kitchen…
…but there are…
gorgeous lingerie models.
…in my imagination.
he said as he….
…furiously…
…kneaded…
*thinks twice about distastefully finishing the thought by discussing what’s in the oven*
Strudel.
I’m a libertarian because I really don’t give a rat’s ass what people do, as long as they leave me alone.
Excellent, repeated use of ‘to be sure’ in the article. Almost enough to be fit for printing on TSTSNBN.
I wanted to sqeez it in a couple more times but figured not to over do it
Here’s an idea: keep your politics and your mistresses a secret from your wife.
But then how will you ever manage to have that hot fmf threesome?
two mistresses?
Payment for services rendered.
Hiding in the closet when your wife thinks you’re out of town?
I guess I’m a small “l” libertarian. I fell out with TOS because of their stridency on issues despite their logical negative consequences. I can bring myself to chose principals in some case. And I’m willing to take good small wins instead of refusing them in favor of losing completely while holding out for the perfect.
That said, I’m libertarian because I despise bureaucrats having power over me. I majored in History – which is a very long sequence of events, almost all of them demonstrating how bad government power can be.
“almost all of them demonstrating how bad government power can be”
I’m “teaching” an online course this summer and the students handed in a paper over the weekend, one aspect of which was Jackson destroying the Second BUSA. I haven’t read the textbook in a year and I forgot that it somehow describes the Panic of 1819 but still faults Jackson declaring that the US economy would suffer booms and busts until the Federal Reserve was created.
..and we have all been farting through silk since the Fed Reserve got here!!!!!
/textbook
Is 1819 a typo?
Nope: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1819
I don’t recall the logic twists most historians go through but somehow they get from 2BUSA being sort of responsible for the panic to only a central bank can stabilize the economy.
I was wondering how they got to Jackson being responsible for the Panic of 1819.
Oh, that was badly written on my part. They fault Jackson for destroying the 2BUSA in the 1830s which led to decades of financial instability.
Jefferson destroyed the first bank, Jackson destroyed the 2nd bank. The Dems have a Jefferson & Jackson dinner yet somehow continue to support the 3rd bank.
“To be sure, there are misogynist and racists everywhere in every party and ideology.”
Waiting for the trademark infringement lawsuit from Robby.
to be fair, Robby needs to make things palatable to his lefty friends.
I thought that’s what the fruit sushi was for.
Ugg. I think I’d rather read a Chapman or Shikha than be halfway through an article and the author pauses for a paragraph to shine a virtue signal around for all to see.
Lots to hate about this, but I’m linking for the sheer comedy of people taking future gentrification for granted.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/obama-presidential-center-to-cost-illinois-taxpayers-nearly-200-million
Since when have obvious boondoggles ever created gentrification? Gentrification usually comes from something nearby actually providing tangible value to people. This thing has even less tangible value than a light rail station.
It worked for New London, CT.
Luckily Illinois has a balanced budget and is rolling cash.
Good one, PITS.
The greatest philosopher ever was Jesus.
And a Best Selling Author as Well
Pfft. Dude didn’t make a dime off his work. Broke, starving, and trussed up by Romans is no way to go through life.
Some people find being trussed up a turn on.
“Forgive them father, for they know not what they do” was apparently a bad choice for safe-word?
Ooh, Daddy issues. Not my thing, but de gustibus, amirite?
Never got as much as a dime in royalties, however.
Uh, I think I’d forgo royalties for the RHOG spot.
To be fair, the Romans didn’t have dimes, did they?
His extended Family did Quite well however……….
You are thinking of Paul. Jesus didn’t really write much.
The writings of Jesus.
Wait, Jesus Christ or Jesus Quintana?
Jesus Aguilar.
Nobody fucks with the Jesus.
Yeah, but that creep can roll, man.
Totally OT but I’ve been waiting for a Pie article to post some Romanian music, which apparently has become the Running Man of the Far East
https://youtu.be/uqkA7sfxVzI
The video became a lot better and more mezmorizing when I muted it.
there may be something in the works
Romanian music
Dracula after a helium balloon?
So might as well relax and have ourselves a nice sandwich and a cold beer. Also convince more models to be libertarian. Otherwise the terrorists win. And by that I do not mean kidnapping to attempt brainwashing. So you know, don’t do that.
Ah…
*glances in direction of noises coming from locked basement door*
Shit.
Individualist vs. collectivist arguments do miss one very important fact; there are in fact genetic differences between different groups of people, most notably between males and females.
I agree that the differences in partisan affiliation when it comes to the breakdown on racial lines is likely chalked up to culture and environmental influence. However, there are genetic differences in the ways men and women’s brains work mostly due to evolutionary differences in roles back on the Savannah. Women are the cornerstone of the Dems/Lefty collectivist politics. They have an inborn desire for community building and socialization due to evolutionary roles in child-rearing. Men, as hunters, were much more interested in individualism, self-reliance and goal-oriented pursuits. Of course there is a lot of overlap in the distributions, so there are plenty of male Lefties and female Conservatards, however the major parties have strategized to capture people based on these tendencies. Libertarianism is tricky because it really is a position that you have to reason yourself into. Since people, on average, hate expending the effort to use logical and critical thought, it’s easier to just go with what feels natural rather than actually try to understand the implications of one philosophy vs. another.
Cultural and environment can override those instincts, if the individualis open to having their mind changed. While many will just dig their heels in with excuse of “that wasn’t real socialism”, or “we just need the right people in charge”, or whatever justification eases their cognitive dissonance, some will face reality. Expats from socialist shitholes tend to be more open to liberty, regardless of gender.
so you are saying women should not vote?
I have repeatedly posted that all the great problems in US society trace back to Women’s Suffrage.
Exactly. Tell ENB.
But wait until she finishes her lunch.
her lunch or making someone a sammich for their lunch?
I figured that’s what the picture of the sammich was for.
I don’t know about voting, but I think the Saudi’s have the right idea bout women driving; mainly they shouldn’t. (Kidding. Mostly.)
I’m willing to let those who own significant property vote.
Here is a female YouTuber who argues exactly that.
Would.
I realize people have instincts and often go for them. T His is why I think one needs to actually go out oif ones way to at least understand a correct version of libertarianism if not to fully agree
turned away from libertarianism by random opinions on twitter
So what you are saying is that it was libertarian Russian trolls that threw the election to Trump.
Libertarianism, being a relatively small ideology, has little mainstream exposure
And what exposure is gets is, well, often not good for the cause.
Also, the girl on the far right…DAYUM.
Do not objectify PoC women, that is sexist and racist.
“Libertarianism is tricky because it really is a position that you have to reason yourself into”
And it has to be reasoned against a century or more of building a different kind of world. We joke about building roads but since, for at least 100 years, almost every road has been built by a government entity, it really is hard for people to think of a different solution. The majority of people, at least in western* countries really believe that ONLY government can build roads, manage air travel, run emergency services, etc., etc. A century of inertia is hard to overcome.
*yes, western is a vague term
The inertia is hard to overcome, but there is no need to reason one’s self into Libertarianism – it stands up to reason but it does not require reason. Socialism et al are the ones that require reason – and the only ones buying into it are people who either can’t reason or are willing to cease reasoning once they are emotionally satisfied. (And sometimes being a malcontent IS the emotional satisfaction they crave.)
Libertarianism takes brains but more importantly it takes humility.
In my political travels from left to right, I’ve found libertarianism to be the most logically consistent philoshophy. Whether it holds up in the real world is another debate. But, in a way, I suppse libertarianism has already been proved on several fronts. Markets will spring up where there is a need, most people _will_ leave others alone, and people will volunteer without financial incentives.
“Libertarianism takes brains but more importantly it takes humility.”
This is key. You have to recognize your own ignorance before you can let go of the idea that you can set the course for all of humanity via democracy. The other part is recognizing that government is force, and using force to gain your preferred social outcomes is wrong.
Relevant
Or, to rephrase, why are there not more women / higher melanin / pansexual / gender fluid libertarians?
Maybe there are plenty, but they just don’t suffer from a compulsion to broadcast it incessantly.
percentage wise I doubt it. Off course maybe in flyover america, there be none in Bucharest
The ones we have only bring those aspects into the conversation when it has some bearing or makes for good smirk, so to be sure, this has some truth to it.
If your beliefs are solid, I cannot see how you are dissuaded from them by someone saying something you don’t like.
This.
Nice article, Pie.
I remember hearing one in a TV interview saying “yes we were told not to go and went anyway, but they couldn’t have just left us there to die” and I remember asking my parents why not, and not fully in jest. So there is that.
Good boy. I hope they rewarded you with a cookie.
it was a dilemma for me. I mean they were stopped from going, they snicked around in the woods in the dark to go anyway and people risked their lives to save them.
Your initial instincts were correct. I wouldn’t be surprised if those same people didn’t repeat similar – if not exactly the same – behavior later. Better that they win a Darwin Award and remove themselves from the gene pool.
It’s the same thing with immigration. In places like Australia, a lot of the people (and the government reflects this) says, “We’re not letting you into the country, so don’t even try leaving Indonesia in those rickety boats.” And yet people still try, and there’s a small number of Usual Suspect types in the media shrieking about what the government is doing to people who don’t heed the warnings and try anyway.
Need more proof libertarianism has no chance in our banana republic? Well, here ya go.
I’m one of the weird ones. I chose both my religion and my politics after lots of studying. I was born in a Catholic household and my instinct I’m pretty Team Red. But I separated from the Church after coming to the conclusion that I find some of their practices to be downright anti-biblical, and I left Team Red because, you know, they are stupid on a lot of policy matters. But in my bones, I’d still prefer the aesthetics of both.
This is why I find the company of radicals more favorable, even though we usually have radically different ideas. You don’t get to libertarianism (non-Alex-Jones version) or Marxism or Georgist or Dark-Enlightenment or whatever by accident. I’ll take the company of someone interesting-but-wrong over some basic bitch any day of the week.
I’m one of the weird ones.
Yes, that’s extremely unusual around here.
Oh, I know its less uncommon here than elsewhere. Its one of the reasons I hang out here.
Normal people bore me to tears, but I suppose if I started blathering about my politics, hobbies, and what I do for vacation, I would get a lot of yawns too.
Great article Pie. I would love for one of the ladies here to write an article from a female libertarian perspective.
MYTH!
Yeth?
Preferably with some pictures amiright?
In all seriousness this is a good article, Pie and Florida Man has a great idea.
There are no women here. Just dudes with boobs. They lost their woman status when they betrayed the sisterhood.
… But there aren’t any…? 😉
Fine. I would like to read an article written by someone who identifies as “female” from a libertarian perspective.
What about a lesbian trapped in a man’s body?
+tribadism
Are you Ms. Garrison?
“Scissor me, Xerxes!”
+69Les’Bos
OOOhh…lookit you enacting our labor and shit!
/progfem
I, um…
*backs away*
On this, Marx agrees wholeheartedly. We have to be careful with this concept, because if we take it as a, unalterable given that man is product of the collective and not a reasoning individual with his own agency, then it justifies all sorts of evil things in order to correct it.
The reality is that man is both an individual and a product of the collective. The collective part of him is his base nature, his tribal instinct. The individual with the rational capacity for reason is the ideal he aspires, or should aspire to.
This is why the collectivists are the opposite of idealists, the ultimate Hobbesian pessimists.
Marx, when talking about the past instead of predicting the future, was actually a very sharp observer of the human condition. But he was a bitter, angry, sad failure, which drove him to interpret things in the way he did.
You said “We have to be careful with this concept, because if we take it as a, unalterable given that man is product of the collective and not a reasoning individual with his own agency, then it justifies all sorts of evil things in order to correct it.” I think this is very accurate if worded exactly like this. The Enlightenment idea that each person is equal is, obviously, not entirely correct. But its the kind of wrong that will lead to better outcomes if everyone believes it.
But of course, Marx didn’t believe that all people (and thus by extension all classes of people) are inherently equal. Probably because he couldn’t crack his way into the upper class no matter how intellectually gifted and hard working he was (a pattern seen over and over from academics). So he focused his output on explaining just why they were in fact terrible and why they should be knocked down.
In reading Hicks’ essays on postmodernism and its intellectual ancestors, the majority of the philosophers involved seem to be cynical malcontents.
Yes, postmodernism is the product of poorly adjusted and bitter old men. Locke, Smith, Jefferson, Lafayette et al seemed to be much more well adjusted and optimistic. Draw the conclusions you will.
what i find about pomo is not even original just took some things to silly extremes and coached it in obscurantist language to sound profound to highschoolers and university students. And in general tha kind of people who thing big words are profound.
I heard pomo guy saying that pomo invented critiquing overarching narratives and power structures and shit. that is as old as humanity.
somehow mthis youtube got in my recomends recewntly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFANgWN2Ul0
it is basically how postmodernism made Monty python. I wont debate tat but it seems to say subverting tropes and absurdist humor is pomo. it is much older than that.
the video claims this about holly grail subverting the metanarative of chivalry. Hell whet is pomo about that? A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court did that long before post modernism.
“I no longer have to be right, I only have to be interesting.” – Stanley Fish
Postmodernism is the ever continuing search for meaninglessness.
Great article! The only think I’d question is the title.
When I think about it, I tend to conclude that libertarians are the good guys. In your favorite action movie, is the hero the guy running around telling everyone else how to live their lives? Or is he more likely to be the guy who mostly wants to be left alone and only reluctantly gets pulled into the conflict? When you think of the good guy, is it some guy who wants to see other people taken down? Or is he more likely just happy to try to get by on his own? When you think of a good guy, is it somebody telling everyone else what they have to do to help someone out? Or is it someone who rolls up their own sleeves and gets to work?
the title is tongue is cheek I hope it is clear… Not asscheek though, eating ass is unlibertarian.
eating ass is unlibertarian.
I didn’t agree to these terms! I’m starting my own club!
The ass eaters club?
Needs work. Um, anallingus & sensualist society?
Maybe we need to reach out to the community with a naming contest? Ask middle schoolers or something like that for a cool name for this…
Correction, eating ass without guaq is unlibertarian. I’ve been told anything you can eat is improved with guaq.
Pre or post processed guaq?
I understand. I do have one question, though. What if the ass being eaten is that of one of the models you’re trying to convince to be libertarian?
Then it’s a poor time to interrupt her session with the collectivist.
I think that’s part of a branding problem we have. If you describe a libertarian like you just did, then I think most people would be ok with that. But both major parties have successfully branded a “libertarian” as a wacko, or as someone who doesn’t care about anyone but themselves, or they just ignore the idea altogether.
I think that branding is keeping libertarian ideas limited to white men. It’s really hard to break the successful campaign of marginalization from the two major parties.
I have been roped into a couple of political discussions in the past year. I always start with “I know that I am a monster, but . . . . . “
Big Daddy government coming to help you out/bail you out has become so entrenched in the culture that simply suggesting people need to be responsible for their own actions is repellant to the masses. Like Pie said, people who ignore warnings and go hiking in hazardous conditions better be ready to either have an escape plan, get rescued by private groups or die. Expecting the government to bail out people’s stupidity is absurd.
Not if you want all the freedoms but not any responsibility, and usually that’s what the leftists want… Of course when it becomes too costly or dangerous to let people do their own thing, what you end up with is tyranny.
But, that’s just it. When you think about libertarianism is probably the most “motherhood and apple pie” political philosophies out there. Don’t hurt people. Don’t take their stuff. Treat people like individuals. Think for yourself. If you want something, go out and earn it. Don’t be a busybody. Take responsibility for doing your own part in the world. All of this stuff is really pretty basic things you get told when you’re a kid. Where did we get to the point that having a political philosophy consistent with those things makes you a monster?
While liberals and conservatives disagree on the specifics, they are unified in the belief that government should force the population to behave in ways that leads to the “best” society. Freedom is against the rules.
I think because a lot of people have civic lives that are separate from their social or personal lives. I have a friend who is an actual Socialist living in the Chi. There isn’t anything in his day-to-day personal conduct that isn’t compatible with libertarianism. He works hard, believes in personal responsibility, values integrity, rational thought, judging individuals on their own merits, the works. Yet, politically, he believes it’s immoral to send your kids to private school or even to move your kid out of an underperforming public school district. He favors massively increased taxes, extensive social welfare, government regulation, everything you’d expect from a Socialist.
As I count the number of libertarians I’ve met on one hand, it seems to me that a common thread is that they don’t separate the personal and the political. They believe in personal responsibility in their personal lives but also expect it from “society” at large. They believe aggression is wrong whether it’s a person being a bully or government forcing you to do something “for the greater good”. They look at the irresponsible hikers and think, “Would I be willing to risk someone else’s life because I made a careless mistake? Would I be ok with my child dying on a mountain trying to rescue grown adults who made a selfish, irresponsible choice? No? Then it’s wrong to expect anyone else to think any differently.”
“Would I be willing to risk someone else’s life because I made a careless mistake? Would I be ok with my child dying on a mountain trying to rescue grown adults who made a selfish, irresponsible choice? No? Then it’s wrong to expect anyone else to think any differently.”
I don’t want to be a smartass, but “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”. Again really basic stuff.
Very basic, but there are a lot of people who fully believe that “someone” or “the government” has a responsibility to pull their bacon out of the fire who would balk at the idea that they might be that “someone” for somebody else.
Only trouble is people usually conclude “Gimme free stuff now and I’ll pay taxes when I’m as rich as Trump.”
“I supported Obamacare because I want everyone to have healthcare. I just didn’t know I was going to have to pay for it.”
A quote from some idiot progressive after getting their insurance bill post-Obumblecare. I will remember that for the rest of my life.
“A quote from some idiot progressive after getting their insurance bill post-Obumblecare.”
To be honest these morons, like the numerous tools that thought supporting this bullshit wouldn’t impact them in any way, but especially financially (free virtue signalling!), were told by the proggie leadership peddling this snake oil solution that they would make the rich pay for it all, and the idiots believed that would be how this played out…
They just failed to realize that they were rich.
It started with having spinsters being responsible for schooling kids and then making it compulsory. It’s easy to teach children bullshit for 9 months when you aren’t actually responsible for them.
They used to actually teach them something, but over time it seems the quality of what they thought went down, while the pile of stupid ideas they imparted has skyrocketed…
The biggest malcontents I know are public school teachers.
Ideas like freedom, limited government and liberty are crazy. Get with the program.
The ones we have only bring those aspects into the conversation when it has some bearing or makes for good smirk, so to be sure, this has some truth to it.
Exactly. According to my hastily concocted sub-definition of libertarianism, an emphasis on the individual does not arise from, or include, using the inherent traits of an individual to cudgel other people into ceding a benefit or advantage. Respect, yes. Peaceful coexistence, yes. Enforced enthusiastic embrace, no.
BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE, PEASANT.
Remind me: What’s the shit to sawdust ratio for a wedding cake?
and there’s a small number of Usual Suspect types in the media shrieking about what the government is doing to people who don’t heed the warnings and try anyway.
Look, Ted. If you tell your neighbor’s kid not to jump off the roof using an umbrella as a parachute, and he does it anyway, that’s just the same as if you carried the kicking and screaming child up the ladder and hurled him to his doom.
Have we taken a poll? This community which is more libertarian than any I know has no small number of homosexuals, women, not whites and people with every fetish imaginable.
Also, someone please remove the photo with the avocado in it. Blech! What is next? Cilantro????
YOU LIE!
*yells at mom, slams basement door*
“every fetish imaginable”
OK, who’s the one with the coprophilia?
If you look around the poker table and don’t see the patsy, guess what?
BURN!
Suthen?
I think you’ve been in the bayou too long. AS we speak, I’m enjoying a cheddar/jalapeno pub burger with avacado and honeydew melon.
Delicious.
So you’re saying Bulimia is the answer?
cheddar/jalapeno pub burger … should have stopped right there.
Oh, are you one of those “cilantro tastes like soap” people?
It’s not their fault. It is actually genetic. Their inferior genes have failed them.
Some people have posted their personality test results. If I recall rare personalities were over represented on this site.
Individualism.. it rocks.
I’m a DGAF.
I thought you were a MILF.
I would assume INTJ is over represented.
INTP
I‘m Not Technically Perfect but the difference is just a rounding error
The eneagram post was quite revealing. Nearly everyone was a 5, the observer
I remember that. I looked at the results and thought “Aha! So I am special and unique…just like everyone else.”
Middle aged white male here. I love freedom, guns, pussy and sammiches, in that order. I’m certainly not breaking the mold.
Now get off my lawn.
You know you’re finally old when sammiches move above the pussy in the priority chart
BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE, PEASANT.
Just so you know- it’s gonna taste like ass.
Now I see the patsy.
That fits a comment I’ve made more than once only half-jokingly, If the plaintiffs get to force someone to bake their cake, then they should be forced to eat it.
On ye olde Reason mailing list, we had a “how did you come to
Jesuslibertarianism (or other) thread. It was an interesting read.I never had a come to Jesus moment. The struggle more in finding a name for the views I already held. My parents were Reagan conservatives and most of what they said about small government made sense to me, but then they also supported other things would necessitate a large government and that inconsistency never sat well with me. Eventually I just learned that my type of views were called ‘libertarian’ but that never really did it justice so I concocted my own flavor; Constitutional Property Rights Minarchist.
And now we know the rest of the story.
Good day.
Similar to me. Still the first time I heard a libertarian politician talk I was turned off. What do you mean “get rid of the welfare state.”? It took me awhile to get to some libertarian positions and even now I still view myself as a classical liberal.
I became fundamentally opposed to welfare by living in a neighborhood with a high percentage of recipients in it. Their attitudes made it clear that it was not a safety net, but a lifestyle. It didn’t take a whole lot to conclude we shouldn’t be paying them to sit idle when they were clearly more than capable of work.
They they give you shit for disagreeing with them when they said they deserved even more handouts?
I didn’t talk to my neighbors much…
Make that – I don’t talk to my neighbors and never have.
Growing up between two Indian Reservations leads to similar conclusions.
I was a conservative who wondered where the hell marriage was delegated to the fedgov in the constitution. From there, I began questioning other parts of SoCon heterodoxy before eventually moving to economic and foreign policy issues..
I have a socialist to thank for it.
Young punk in the eighties, anarchy symbol on my leather, desire to watch society burn. Wound up going to a socialist meeting. Why not. It’s how I identified myself, and the chick I was going with was sexy as hell. Shit ton of boring speeches that I nodded along to. One old hippie, though, started describing the ideal society, self organizing, where everyone would work for the common good. Something clicked. I asked “what if they don’t want to work, would you have to use force?”. He was honest and said that the community would be forced to.
Light bulb over the head moment.
Spent the next few years trying to sort out all the emotions from reason and come up with some sort of philosophical view of government.
Never did manage. I view libertarian as a process. As a general ideal. I hate bullies, and want people to leave me alone.
Raised in a conservative (and very Dutch) suburb – self-reliance is a virtue, so is self-control. But I also railed against the Christian hypocrites and the conformity of the small town. I was a sensitive, shy kid who was always asking questions. I was also given a very free childhood – running around without my parents know where I was. So we – and I mean the neighborhood kids and I – made our own rules. And only rarely ran to parents for help. I would go to my older brother first. I learned a distrust of institutions, finding the educators mostly idiots.
Of course in my rebel teenage years, I went punk. And thought of myself as a damn communist since that was the only “fair” system. This was at the height of the cold war, mind you. *sigh*
Later, after college, that lefty-ism died when I started earning a paycheck. I began to wonder when in the hell all of these taxes were going. And why was I, a young’n who was just starting out, having to pay the way for those who didn’t work? The needle started moving to the right.
By the time that Bush the Younger became president I was a weak Republican. And a bit of a war hawk after 9/11. But dismayed with the wasted blood ‘n’ treasure, along with exposure to ToS (and the commentators), I’ve become quite anti-war. I wouldn’t be able to hold a conversation with my old self.
It took time, didn’t it, to become a libertarian. Like most of us, we became more libertarian over time as we learned and saw things.
Yet many LPers think it will be effective, in growing vote totals and eventually electing people, to put the most radical and unbending
platform out there, coupled with some inexperienced and inarticulate candidate.
There aren’t many libertarians but there are a lot of people who want smaller government, less regulations, and gun rights. Most of those ppeople are white men. Most white men want those things.
libertarianism as a movement will fail. After laying out sound principles the libertarian plan for achieving those principles seems to be to just talk about how great they are to people who don’t care. There has to be a plan for how you get a society that embraces those ideas. Just hoping everyone changes their mind won’t work.
I see the problem of libertarianism gaining a decent foothold being that, by their very nature, libertarians aren’t “joiners”. When you hate collectives and clubs and organizations, you’re going to have a tough time getting your ideas out there.
“I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.”
Exactly!
(also, “I don’t want to belong to any club. Period.”)
I dunno…have they a good bar?
And you’re not exactly inclined to run for public office when your philosophy of life is to leave other people alone.
“When you hate collectives and clubs and organizations”
If that’s what libertarianism was, it should fail. Fortunately, it is not.
This. ^^
Libertarian =/= antisocial
The fact that I’m antisocial is merely a coincidence.
The fact that I’m antisocial is merely a coincidence.
I resemble that remark.
OT… re: the children being separated from their parents at the border
It’s hilarious that the progs have been spending several decades trying to destroy the family to replace it with The State, and now they’re all like “Familes belong together!!!!”.
Once they’re on this side of the border, then they can be separated by the right government agencies.
+1 Elian Gonzalez
Even more hilarious is that Obama was doing EXACTLY THE SAME THING, but that was different because reasons.
Too bad that the term “whataboutism” is being slung around as an excuse for “progressives” being absolute fucking hypocrites.
I got to watch CNN in the gym this morning, they had an in depth story on the separation.
Do people really think this is a new thing?
Yes, since the media never covered it when Obama was in office.
The thing that annoys the shit out of me about it is how disingenuous the media is being about reporting it. Yes, they’re separating children from parents. They’re charging the parents with a federal crime–illegal entry–instead of just waving them off into Immigration Court like they’ve done in the past. Which is to say they’re enforcing the actual law as written. As with any adult in the US, if children are involved they don’t get sent to jail with the parents to await a hearing, because at some point it was decided that sticking ten year olds in prison with people arrested for murder, rape, etc., was a bad idea. They separate the parents, too, by the way, because jails are gender-segregated. If they go to prison, the kids will become wards of the state unless and until another legal guardian can be found. This is the same thing that happens if John Doe of Laurel, MD gets picked up for aggravated assault while he’s driving his kid to Six Flags; they contact family if available, and failing that they go into the system, possibly into foster care if it comes to that.
Don’t like it? Change the law. If it’s a crime to enter the country illegally, then it’s a crime and it should be treated as such. If you don’t want to treat it as a crime, then change the law. Otherwise, you end up with a corrupt system where they sword of Damocles is hanging over anyone in the country illegally, potentially leaving them open to blackmail, extortion, or just uncertain as to if and when they’ll get a knock on the door.
Huzzah!
From the chick BP linked to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUL2pI1psSw
From my unscientific survey of feminist women in the kink community. Oh, hell yeah they do. They want a big ole heaping pile of it. The more feminist she is, the more she wants to be taken over a man’s knee, spanked, and made to say ‘Yes, Sir’ or ‘Yes, Daddy’. It’s why I say that when feminists discuss ‘rape culture’ and ‘patriarchy’ they aren’t being descriptive of the real world, they are being prescriptive / projecting their fantasies onto reality.
Somewhat related, somewhat not, from the British Journal of Medical Psychology (hat tip Ace of Spades HQ):
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324890681_%27You_Shall_Not_Replace_Us%27_White_supremacy_psychotherapy_and_decolonisation
Check out the racism pyramid figure, apparently we’re all racists (don’t deny it, denial confirms it too).
It’s science!
I feel bad for his patients.
My kids participate in “sand play”. 20 bucks in lumber and some sand. The key is though that you get a cover so the cats your neighbors let roam free don’t poop in it.
That’s great scienceing. Why didn’t that rube Einstein just add the caveat that if you deny his theories that proves them. Would have gotten that Nobel a lot faster.
Well judging by the number of people here that have non-white wives, we at least don’t hate the women.
Here’s my theory on why most libertarians are wypipo:
Humans like free shit. Not minorities, not women, but all humans as a group like to take an easy payday if the opportunity presents itself. It’s human nature.
Democrats promise a lot of free shit for women and minorities, and they invent logic about patriarchy and social justice to justify it. Women and minorities, being human beings, are captivated by the allure of free shit, so they are more likely to vote Democrat.
Libertarians don’t promise anyone free shit, so they don’t get any special attention from any particular group, and most women and minorities are wooed by the Democrats’ promise of free shit. This leaves libertarians with mostly white males.
If you promised free shit to all white people, you’d get more white votes. If you promised free shit for people whose names start with T, you’d get more votes from people whose names start with T. If you promised free shit for people who think cilantro tastes like soap, you’d get more votes from people who think cilantro tastes like soap. It’s just how the pandering process works.
And apologies if this has been posted above; I tried to skim all the comments before posting, but I don’t have any more time and have to go to work (because nobody gives me free shit).
We give you shit all the time! :-p
What a Shitty thing to say!
It is true however 😉
Individualism was a creation of the Enlightenment and it was created almost exclusively by white males. In the postmodern age, the Enlightenment ideals are most closely represented by the libertarian movement. Postmodernism/collectivism is a rejection of the Enlightenment and because postmodernism looks at everything with an explicitly subjective lens, white males are to be rejected along with the Enlightenment.
It’s nonsensical, and not the whole story, but it is a large part of it.
one can argue that pomo socialism marxism etc are also creatures of the Enlightenment. And there was individualism in some form or other before.
I’d say they were a reaction to the Enlightenment, a rejection of individualism largely motivated by dissatisfaction with the elevation of the individual over the collective (in most cases the religious collective). Kant regretted the destruction of religion by the Enlightenment and Rousseau desired a state religion with heretics to be put to death.
Later philosophers replaced the church with the state as the organizing principle for the collective.
I think Rousseau thought he was thinking in the vein of the Enlightenment, but his understandings of central concepts was flawed, which led to a flawed outcome.
People who think cilantro tastes like soap should be force fed cilantro until they change their minds.
Or, you know, they should just stop whining about it and leave more for me.
aint no chimichurri without cilantro
Now I have this incredible urge to run over to Tacos El Caporal – it’s Cilantro Heaven
The cilantro-tastes-like-soap thing is genetic, isn’t it? You should pity those poor, mutated freaks.
Some say so.
http://ai.stanford.edu/~chuongdo/papers/cilantro.pdf
I think its a product of being cursed by a witch when you are a newborn. So agree to disagree I guess.
If I have learned anything from comic books, its that we should kill all mutants.
On that, we can all agree.
*conceals ability to curl tongue, blue eyes and other signs of mutation*
From a brief Google-fu:
. . . after conducting a few separate studies, scientists were able to pin down most cilantro haters as people with a shared group of olfactory-receptor genes, called OR6A2, that pick up on the smell of aldehyde chemicals. Aldehyde chemicals are found in both cilantro and soap.
There you have it. More fun ensues if you Google OR6A2.
I bet you get somewhat different results if you google ORA1
I’ll get those wypipo voting Democrat for 200 years. /Modern Day LBJ
I’m leery of any description that posits my team isn’t like the other teams because my team has a true insight into morality and my opponents are immoral. It could be right, but it would be the first time the assertion is correct. Everyone thinks their side is uniquely moral.
I agree with you, but there is nothing moral about taking money from people or putting people in jail who haven’t hurt anyone.
Be nice to ENB. She just finally married her girlfriend.
what a masculine specimen there. /s
A man who makes Froot Sooshe look like Randy Savage.
I’m stealing that.
Were sandwiches served at the reception? What about cake? They all want cake.
Oh, cripes, I just looked Suebsaeng up. It explains a lot. My guess is he’s the one making the sandwiches.
Barry Trotz leaving the Caps
Go Penguins!
But seriously, if they have a crappy year, the fan base will be out for the GM’s scalp.
My wife is libertarian and she’s Japanese.
That is mostly my fault though. She says because of what I’ve taught her all her fiends think she’s weird.
You made her Japanese?
Your beer should be delivered today
Nice! Now I feel extra bad for not sending mine to Nephi yet. I gotta get on that.
I really think so!
There’s a song about it, too.
All her friends are (a) correct and (b) wrong. At the same time.
True, she is weird though. a normal woman would not have stayed with me so long.