The thing that attracts me to libertarianism (well, actually I call my own philosophy Constitutional Property Rights Minarchism, but more on that in a later post) is that it is a governing philosophy based on an idea of how society can best survive while respecting the individual. At the purest level it isn’t about how a person should live their life, but how they should be governed, if at all.
Pictured, a leftist’s idea of the common man
What grinds my gears, as Family Guy’s Peter Griffen said, is people who purport to be libertarian who try to tell me what I should accept on a personal level. The idea is to live and let live while keeping the peace, not to control people’s thoughts. Actually, on a personal level, I disagree with a lot of things that are popular in many libertarian circles, and that isn’t a problem for me. Because to me libertarianism isn’t about structuring society, it’s about structuring government.
This is the part where I get into the personal. There are no ‘to be sures,’ there are no caveats. These are the things I feel in my bones on a personal level. I am unashamed of them, this is who I am. I do not judge others by the same standard that I judge myself; I’m much harsher on myself. If I imposed my personal beliefs through politics, the place I create probably wouldn’t be much more free than a caliphate.
- I have never shot a gun. I do not want to.
- I do not believe any marriage outside the Catholic church is legitimate.
- The Catholic church does not recognize gay marriage.
- I do not believe there should be sex outside of marriage.
- Except for beer, cigarettes and painkillers, drugs are bad, MKay.
Pictured: Commie Pope
This is not to say I loathe or hate anyone who does any of the above; but I will judge you by your actions, and I am free to disassociate with you as I feel fit if your actions abhor me. For anyone complaining that I wouldn’t personally recognize gay marriage, know that I also don’t recognize the marriage of my brother who got married by a justice of the peace. I hold no animus towards him or his ‘wife’, I just don’t consider them married. They are living together and raising their children and that is just fine, but they are not married in my eyes and are violating rule 4 that I would impose on myself but not others.
Now for the political. Well, all of those points have no place here. As long as people don’t harm each other or respective property, I have no problems. If I can’t convince you that my personal morals are correct, I have no right to force them on you. Choosing the way we govern ourselves is not the same as the way we personally act. Governance should be about understanding the rights inherent in being a human and respecting that. It is a whole other post to describe the nature of rights, as well as to explain my CPRM philosophy. I might get around to that, if you haven’t rejected me as a pariah by then.
We’re all individuals but if we work together we can put Heimdall out of a job.
No, I haven’t read the article yet.
Lips get tired?
Live and let live. What an extreme concept. Although it wasn’t 240 years ago.
Although it wasn’t 240 years ago. – meh depends…
“If I can’t convince you that my personal morals are correct, I have no right to force them on you”
This seems to me to be one of the most important points. And now I’m just thinking out loud but, I think one of the problems in society today is that the majority of people have accepted (knowingly or unknowingly) the idea that man is rational. Therefore, we can make what we think are rational arguments and persuade people that we are correct. When those arguments don’t persuade, we (subconsciously I think) decide that people are irrational (deplorables, socialists, what have you) and therefore force can, nay must be used against them in order to achieve a rational outcome. This, of course, was one important argument made by Rousseau.
Seems like democracy fetish most people have convinces people that they CAN force their personal morals upon anyone as long as their side wins an election. Certainly the left currently thinks the election of Trump means that “the other side” can force its morals upon them – probably because that’s what the left had been doing for the prior eight years.
Eight?
The good thing about libertarianism is that it allows one to think, feel, discriminate, or associate with or about whomever or whatever they want.
An out and out racist can be a perfect libertarian as long as he never advocates for state power to be used in a racist way. Same for a communist or a fundy.
In a libertarian society, there is room for all beliefs.
An out and out racist can be a perfect libertarian as long as he never advocates for state power to be used in a racist way – or does not engage himself in violence, but that goes without saying i s’pose
No caffeine? I can deal with you being a heretical follower of the bishop of Rome, but no caffeine? Literally Hitler.
I’m allergic to caffeine. Therefore it is bad.
I’m allergic to cats, but they’re still awesome.
I’m allergic to cats, and they are selfish pricks, therefore bad.
I used to go to parties and not be bothered by the cigarette smoke. Now, I think I’d rather stand next to an open sewer.
But do you think bars should be forbidden from allowing smoking?
Except for beer, cigarettes and painkillers, drugs are bad, MKay
In all seriousness, how do you rationalize this? Is it because these are largely accepted by Catholics as non sinful, or a personal preference kind of thing?
In my lived experience people who do other drugs seem to more quickly fall into other immoral things. I mean I’ve smoked pot, decided it wasn’t for me but I’ve had friends who got way too into it and getting high became their only interest in life. This of course happens with alcoholics too, but it seems to be a much smaller percentage from my experience. Like I said in the article, I haven’t really rationalized into these positions, they are just MA FEELZ.
I’m fine with everything you said….except for never wanting to fire a weapon. You don’t know what you’re missing!
Oh no…I am fine with that, if he doesn’t want to.
BUT A CAREBEARS GIF?! OUTRAGEOUS!
You’re literally worse than Hitler. You deserve to be kicked out of a restaurant.
As far as #1 goes.
Hey, CPRM. I have a little .38. I’ll let you shoot it. Just once buddy. You won’t get hooked. It’s just this one time. It won’t hurt you. It will be okay. Just give it a try.
Everyone’s first shooting experience should be with a ruger 10/22. FACT!
HA! I was just thinking the same thing.
Mine was a Mosin. I still recovered just fine.
A friend of mine just bought a Mosin. I told him I hoped his chiropractor gave out punch cards.
Just as long as it’s not a .50 deagle.
Two bros brought a chick to our local indoor range to shoot for the first time. They gave her that. 20 minutes of crying later, that girl will probably never shoot another gun.
That’s gotta be Right Up There with “The Stupidest Things I’ve Ever Heard.” Perhaps they were trying to make her hate guns?
A .357 Desert Eagle was one of the very first handguns I fired, possibly the first. Hilariously too large for my hands, I could _just_ get the tip of my finger on the trigger.
Do you have Trump hands or were you a child at the time?
Full-grown, just compact. Hands are proportional.
“I could _just_ get the tip of my finger on the trigger.”
Never play ‘just the tip’ with a Desert Eagle.
Also acceptable; Marlin Model 60
Hard to really remember, but I’m pretty sure my first pistol was an 8 shot .22 revolver, first shotgun was a 410 break action, and first rifle was a Chinese sks.
First gun for me was a single shot H&R 20 Ga.
Mine was, and it’s still one of my favorite guns.
My introduction goes – pellet pistol for safety demonstration and sight alignment. Followed by .22LR – single round, followed by full magazine. After that unfortunately my next smallest gun is .45ACP. So we did one round of that.
I warned my buddy about the recoil, but he said he was still so surprised he almost dropped the pistol.
But after that no issues and he had a great time.
I remember as a 12 year old kid shooting .22LR in rifle and shooting a pump action .410 for the first time. The difference in recoil surprised the heck out of me.
I almost dropped my Mom’s .410 the first time I shot it. She was almost more concerned about the .410 than me. She loved that shotgun.
Mine was an old Mossberg semi-auto .22. Still have it.
Mine was a 30-30. I was scared as shit to fire it as a kid. my dad had to help me squeeze off the first round to get me over my fear. After that no issues other than a scope generated black eye or two.
Marlin 60. (6 or 7 years old)
Stevens .410. or an unknown 20 gauge double barrel (about 11, rabbit hunting or boy scouts (1st Merit badge))
1911 Colt. (ARMY TRAINING, SIR!)
Winchester 30/30 (16 or 17)
Mine was with one of my dad’s 9mm pistols. I think a Beretta.
All of my guns were lost in a boating accident.
Yeah, that’s it.
I just want to be left alone, so hopefully if I leave YOU alone, maybe you won’t bug me, now get off my Lawn so i can smoke Weed in Peace!
Good job CPRM!
1) Shot a handgun for the first time last September. Purchased 4 pistols in December. Have run through about 4 cases since then.
2) Married by JP in 1976. It’s been great living in sin all that time.
3) I gave up the Catholic Church by about 1975. I don’t care what the church says. They have the right to make up their own rules and have their own referees call pentalies on their own members. On the other hand, FedGov must treat my brother’s marriage to his husband the same as it treats my marriage to my wife (both non-marriages in the eyes of the church of course).
4) Sex is sex. Wedding vows are a contract. Breaking the contract is bad. Otherwise, I don’t care who fucks whom or which way they fuck so long as consenting adults are involved (sex involving minors is a much more complicated discussion).
5) Drugs are drugs; “good” and “bad” have no meaning. Use and abuse is an entirely different discussion.
Drugs are drugs; “good” and “bad” have no meaning.
As Doug Stanhope said, kids there are good drugs and bad drugs, and how you know the difference is you esxperiment
My afternoon is swamped, so I’m afraid I have to threadjack: I give you the molten lava of Vesuvius of hot takes.
Apparently, “The Socialist Party” understands nothing about what money is or why it’s necessary in every society above bare survival level. Whoever’s behind that account, I’m pretty sure I’ve lost more brain cells in one good dump on the toilet than he/she/it/they possess in their entire body/bodies.
A perfect example of why flaming stupidity should be a capital crime.
One of the replys was pretty good…
“Fine, give me all your money then”
Weird how socialists hate private property when it’s someone else’s property.
That’s not private property, that’s personal property.
What’s the difference you ask? Private property is anything a socialist wants to take from someone else, personal property is something the socialist doesn’t want other people to take from him.
What property rights would genuine socialism strip from people? It would NOT mean people having to leave homes they live in. People would continue living in ‘their’ homes. And people struggling to pay rent or a mortgage would then no longer have to worry about finding the money!
‘their’ homes
lol
Can’t “violate” people’s “rights” if you never recognized said rights in the first place!
I give you a resounding “That’s fair” to all points. My opinion differs on several, but that’s fine, too.
Though I will say that, and I don’t mean to pressure you in any way, shooting guns is pretty fun, and as an American you have a relatively unusual opportunity (compared to the rest of the world) to do so in low-pressure environments that don’t involve the risk of death. If you don’t want to get all Dirty Harry you can always shoot clays, which is a little like miniature golf with a shotgun.
But if you don’t wanna, you don’t wanna, and that’s okay.
That’s just, like your opinion man.
Opinions are like assholes: everybody has one.
The difference between opinions and assholes is that STEVE SMITH won’t ream you a new opinion.
STEVE SMITH BEEN EATING ASS SINCE PATTERSON_GIMLIN FILM!
So…Care Bears are squirters?
*shudders, narrows gaze*
I’m pretty much on the same page with you on the personal vs political. I don’t care what you do as long as you don’t hurt anyone else and don’t want to use force to change what I do.
OT: it is hot in Vegas in the summer. It’s not the humidity it’s the heat. I’ve been thirsty since I got of the plane.
Growing up in Houston, my first experience in Vegas (in August) confused me. I was dying of thirst constantly, but I didn’t feel like I’d sweat a drop.
I didn’t think I was either until I raised my arm an got a chill as my pit sweat evaporated instantly.
And this is why I much preferred desert heat – it’s not the heat I hate as much as the slimy feeling of being drenched in sweat.
This, until I moved out west, I had no idea how much humidity really sucked.
Perfect: both tolerant yet judgmental.
This article right here is why I love libertarianism and more specifically a glibertarian. Express these views in some SoCon circles and you are a bloody hedonist. Express them in progressive circles and you are Nazi shitlord. Here we’re say, “Good article Tulpa!”
I’m starting to think maybe we are all Bob, there are many of us here, so, Tulpa?
We are all Bob, we are all Tulpa, we are all one……
Wait this is starting to sound pretty collectivist….. IT’S A TRAP!!!!
I attended the Pride Houston event on Saturday with my son (he came out a couple months ago…TBH I’m still wrapping my head around this). We had a LONG discussion when we came across a group of Christians on a corner speaking to the crowd. They were non-confrontational, and rather polite. The crowd, OTOH, was crude, heckling, and rather juvenile. My son tried to say they were attacking people, and I asked him how they were attacking – because anyone that didn’t want to listen was more than free to walk away. I spent a lot of words pointing out that the crowd was being intolerant, and pointing out how reversing the scene would be…interesting. I sure hope I got through.
I used to live in Vegas and there were always street preachers on Fremont Street. Some were obnoxiuos and confrontational and I always gave them a wide bearth. Others were more like what you described; unintrusive, polite, and non-confrontational. People we’re usually shitty to both kinds indiscriminately. I always took the tracts from the gentle sort and thanked them, I admire the courage and self control that takes.
I understand. At one point one of the guys actually came up to us. I shook his hand, said hello, and politely let him know that while I wasn’t on his “side” as it were (being an agnostic and not much of a believer in the Bible), I appreciated his sincere beliefs, and his and his friends’ civility in expressing them. I was rather annoyed at my son, who wouldn’t even shake his hand, and apologized for the uncivil behavior.
We had walked away, but not too far, and apparently someone in the crowd got a little too pushy, because the police (who had been monitoring the situation from ~20 ft. away) came over and (relatively gently) moved one individual back away from the speakers. I was pleasantly surprised at the overall situation – I had a brief vision of how ugly things could get if anyone went overboard at that point.
The Westboro Baptists did a great job making sure that acts of public evagelism will be met with scorn, at best. If progressives and particularly the LGBT community had any self awareness you’d think they’d embrace the live and let live philosophy….instead they are shockingly fundamentalist in their outlook; ‘get your heart right or else’
The WBC came up at least once in the discussion. And I have nothing but scorn for them. These guys were anything but – fairly soft spoken (they had a handheld speaker setup, and nothing else), and were, in every interaction I saw, very polite.
Mormons?
The only place I’ve encountered the opposite was a guy who showed up at my college campus at least a couple of times a month with a megaphone and called all the women sluts for the way they dressed and denounced everyone as degenerate fornicators polluting ourselves with lust. Good times.
degenerate fornicators polluting ourselves with lust.
Enough talk about my wife!
Lots of street preachers are nut-jobs. Religious zeal is a good cover for some pretty deep-seeded personal issues.
Back in 1980ish, I used to go to the Ann Arbor Art fair. There was one nut who would drag around with a large wooden cross that he was chained to. And he would harangue the crows, even the street / magic performers.
To my-then 10yo religious ears, I was shocked when some people started telling the guy to shut up.
There was one nut who would drag around with a large wooden cross that he was chained to.
Emma Sulkowicz?
We had the Hammond preacher on Penn State campus. He woyluld preach fire and brimstone and take and give back all of the abuse he received. No one needed to call the cops and if anyone got out of line the other people on campus would intervene.
I would consider the very act of preaching on the street without invitation to be batshit crazy. I simply couldn’t imagine doing it.
https://youtu.be/phrYIUyrvBU
“…degenerate fornicators polluting ourselves with lust. ”
Sure sums up my college years.
Did you record his rants and set them to a German hardfloor beat and create an ironic rave scene?
I would’ve done that.
In Penacola there used to be fundie types who would go down to the boardwalk and yell at people going in and out of the bars on weekend nights. They were, shall we say, less than polite.
When I was working at Wal-Mart I had a lady come up to me ask if I was born again, and if not would I like to be born again. I said ‘I was born once, I don’t see a reason to do it again.” then turned and got back to work. She was nice enough to leave at that point.
On the gun thing: I think my feelings on it are the same as many leftists, only I am aware of why I feel that way. I’m a clumsy person, I’m don’t trust myself with dangerous things. Hell I get worried every time I use a hammer that I’m going to smash my own hand. The first time I tried to drive an atv I crashed it, haven’t tried again. My chainsaw is a little 10HP electric, with anything bigger I’m afraid I’d cut a limb off.
My 61-year-old wife with carpal tunnel syndrome in both hands can manage a 9 mm 1911 without problems. She’s never going to win league, but she is accurate enough to defend herself.
I fear my handguns the way I fear my table saw. Meaning — keep track of your hands and fingers and nothing bad will happen. But be stupid, win stupid prizes.
10 HP? that’s a Badass little motor you got there……
mistype, it’s 1 HP
10HP or 10A?
Make no mistake, electric chainsaws can send you to the ER just as well as a gasser can. Don’t treat it any differently.
Also, even if you’re a Nazi, you have impeccable taste in late 90’s, early 00’s pop.
Although blood does add character to the saw! My wife’s old Stihl electric has blood on it from my FIL. No idea what happened or how bad it was (or not bad; he died of natural causes years later) but it makes me chuckle a little when I see those dried brown drops.
Basically, it’s not that I fear guns, I fear myself.
At the risk of sounding preachy I’m going to say…..
That’s exactly why you should at least try it. De-mystifying the experience will make you view them and yourself differently. It’s the same with any fear…..fear heights? Try skydiving. Fear the ocean? Take a surfing lesson. Of course there are limits to this line of thinking but I draw the line at irrational/rational fears. Not trusting yourself to handle something that a supervised 8 year old can do is, respectfully, somewhat irrational if understandable.
Overcoming irrational is what allows us to grow into our best selves.
/End preachiness
SO yeah on a personal level I disagree with all 5 of your points.
Also Easter Orthodox is the True Faith
On a political level I will get off your lawn…
“Easter Orthodox is the True Faith”
You might be onto something. My Moldovan wife was baptized Orthdox and she apparently is allowed to take communion in the Catholic Church (and does so every Sunday with us at mass), but I’m not allowed to take communion in the Orthdox church 🙁
Looks like someone REALLY fucking loves science: https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/46164/
I wonder how that would fly if I advertised that I was performing an informal study to evaluate my personal arousal to various student-submitted pics of vagina & bewbs.
So what she is saying is that I should walk around with my junk hanging out…for science.
I’d love to take part in her study but am unfamiliar with the “bone press method” she references. Maybe I’ve been sending my selfies wrong this whole time?
I just use the standard method – you start measuring just past the taint, circle around the boys twice, then just past the tip
Always measure from the base.
Of your spine.
I always measure from my neighbor’s front porch.
As always, k̵i̵l̵l̵ ̵H̵i̵t̵l̵e̵r̵ HEY YUFUS
Because to me libertarianism isn’t about structuring society, it’s about structuring government. – this is where conservatives disagree and say you cannot have an economically free society without social conservationism. But then again depends how you can define that. Dont become an addicts, dot fuck everything that moves without caring for consequences, take care of your kids are basic responsibility stuff not necessarily so con
in b4 heroic mullet-o sez “thick libertarianism vs. thin libertarianism”
(there are dozens of reflections on this topic, and i haven’t read them all – i haven’t even read the one linked above entirely, nor this one, but have skimmed both before. some are probably better than others and i don’t endorse any. if someone has a fave, lemme know)
but your point ” to me libertarianism isn’t about structuring society, it’s about structuring government.” is very much in tune w/ the way they frame it.
I dislike the idea that “thin” means “NAP *and nothing else*” because i personally think there’s a basket of ideas far broader/deeper than the NAP that makes up the basic ‘classical liberal’/enlightenment argument, all of which are necessary, none of which are by themselves 100% sufficient as axioms. I also find arguments based on that sort of “one-size-fits-all” proposition to be tedious and often circular, and don’t want to throw myself in that camp, necessarily.
I was expecting pics of asian women in that link. I am not saying I am disappointed, but I am disappointed.
“NAP *and nothing else*” is limited imo. T Here are plenty of potential conflicts between individual liberties which need to be navigated, and NAP depends on how you define it.
i’ve just never been much-impressed with the idea that the NAP perfectly captures the entirety of libertarian argument in every possible scenario.
i think its, at best, a ‘general descriptor’ which summarizes key themes at a very high-level, 50,000 foot view, but is otherwise a clumsy, hamhanded, often ‘worst way of arguing any given point’.
i suspect i don’t agree with this guy either, but he has his own critique (from a left pov i assume – he’s one of the BHL guys) of the NAP’s shortcomings, and i agree with his description of the common-problem
i.e. its not that its always *wrong*, necessarily; its that it encourages an absurdly oversimplified approach to everything.
(and, scanning Matt Z.’s ‘6 critiques’ of it, i find myself agreeing w/ about half his points, esp re: 1) property, 2) risk management 3) difficulties defining some behaviors on ‘degree of aggression’, e.g. fraud ; reminder – yesterday i cited a libertarian who claimed ‘all religion is fraud’, and used as NAP rationale for having the state ban it. Perfect example of NAP ‘logic’ resulting in retarded arguments)
I suppose this POV might make me “thick” in some ways; but instead of being ‘thick’ on the matters of left/right culture-war stuff (which mostly disinterests me), i just think there’s far more in the world of history, philosophy, economics, political-argument, which feeds into libertarian reasoning, and to abandon all that in favor of some one-sentence axiom is just… not a good idea at all.
The libertarian armed with the NAP has little need for the close study of history, sociology, or empirical economics. With a little logic and a lot of faith in this basic axiom of morality, virtually any political problem can be neatly solved from the armchair.
Honestly, though, what the author here seems to be saying is that he doesn’t like to rely too much on the NAP because it means he doesn’t get to engage in the bullying and pushing people around he’d like to for the causes he considers good enough. Sorry, but the things he cites are all things that libertarians have issues with, even with a close study of history, sociology, or empirical economics.
Yes. Which basically makes you “not actually disagreeing with him” in the same way i don’t.
I do disagree w/ him when he starts saying its ‘bad because pollution or min wage or blah blah’… but i agree entirely with him when he says, “we can’t talk about these specific things w/o appealing to far more than this axiom”
I think he’s right about the “NAP-alone” method being insufficient; he’s wrong about what more-robust and inclusive libertarian analysis should necessarily conclude.
It seems to me, that the problem with the NAP is that you then have to define ‘aggression’ and ‘harm’, and at that point the wheels come off the ‘NAP as sole axiom of life’ train. Works from 50,000 feet, but we don’t live that high up in the clouds.
yep
I get where you’re coming from, but I suspect a lot of it has to do with assuming that a simple principle like the NAP doesn’t have nuance. Often times a simple statement (“Don’t initiate aggression”) is, as you say, a 50,000 foot view. Hashing out the details doesn’t invalidate the simple statement, but rather expands on it. I think the “additional axioms” you need are the definitions of terms that might be necessary when filling in the nuance. “Fraud” – is it fraud if I lie to someone? “I love that dress” may be a lie, but it doesn’t harm anyone. Your friend’s definition of religion as fraud is pretty much in that book, IMHO. A lie aimed at harming someone (or with reckless disregard for someone’s safety – “Contains no peanuts”, for example), OTOH, is clearly fraud, and should be prevented/redressed as possible.
Short version: the NAP is the core principle, but you need certain other axioms/definitions to prevent derailing of the core principle.
If it takes on added nuance, it only gains it via appeal to ideas which preceded and are (in many cases) far richer veins of thought.
e.g. in your case of adding “harm” to the notion of ‘fraud as aggression’…. that’s JS Mill.
you’re never going to be able to argue the ‘nuance’ of how to apply the NAP without resorting to a far wider body of historical liberal argument. that’s basically my entire point. The NAP has the benefits of *appearing* simple and compelling, but its actually mostly-useless in absence of ‘the other stuff’
But those aren’t necessarily principles, they are axioms – the base assumptions from which you build your arguments. The principle(s) are necessary to decide *how* to build the argument, but the axioms are the *what* you build with. Both are necessary, I agree. But they aren’t the same thing.
I don’t really understand what this distinction is supposed to be clarifying. Also not sure when i claimed 2 different things were the same.
What I said was that the NAP was mostly-useless w/o the wider body of classical-liberal argument which underpins it.
iow, If you don’t know doodly-squat about that stuff, you’re never going to apply the NAP in any useful or helpful way;
and it can even be used to make arguments which are *obviously anti-liberty*
e.g. my “militant athiest who considers all religion a form of fraud which the state should intervene to ban”
Matt Z (the BHL guy linked above) also made a good point re: “property rights +self-ownership” potentially being the more-accurately fundamental idea; not that i think its the best argument, but its just another reason why the glorification of the NAP as sine-qua-non of libertarian thought is often, imo, misplaced
As I said – axioms are the definitions of words and phrases, and yes, those are based on the wider body of thought, so I’m not arguing with that. But *using* those axioms, guided by the principle of the NAP, one can derive a LOT more. This is classical logic – start with axioms, use them to build theories, and so on. The NAP is a test of the *value* of the theories, and the use of axioms (and intermediary theories, as necessary) to build up more and more structure, is the approach taken to get to the answers for questions that, on their face, aren’t answerable simply from the principle.
TL;DR: I agree with the point you’re making, but I’m trying to formalize it more.
I dislike the idea that “thin” means “NAP *and nothing else*” because i personally think there’s a basket of ideas far broader/deeper than the NAP that makes up the basic ‘classical liberal’/enlightenment argument
I find myself having to take the other side of the argument. There are a lot of other values that fit in the liberal’/enlightenment argument that may or may not be perfectly good and worthwhile. I just think it becomes a poison pill to libertarianism to try to include them under the rubric of libertarianism. Skepticism of unscientific or superstitious beliefs probably falls under that ‘classical liberal’/enlightenment argument. So does equality. And maybe support for the downtrodden. The thing is, when you make these competing values to liberty within libertarianism, they wind up wreaking the same havoc that bastardized classical liberalism v1.0 into modern progressivism.
sure.
I don’t recall saying anyone was supposed to take everything vaguely-included in “the enlightenment” wholesale, and accept (or reject) the entire thing in entirety.
Just that if you’re going to have a compelling conversation about political ideas, you should understand at least some of the history and evolution of those ideas and why/how they’ve lead to the current moment
just handwaving, “Muh NAP” isn’t really the slam-dunk some people imagine.
I actually agree w/ parts of your point, and i think a narrow-definition of libertarianism which has some NAP core is perfectly fine…. just that its often not particularly useful when debating the details of some particular policy or philosophical question, and that thinking you’re going to successfully advance libertarian interests with this one tool and nothing else is pure delusion.
call it “necessary, but not sufficient”
I actually agree w/ parts of your point, and i think a narrow-definition of libertarianism which has some NAP core is perfectly fine…. just that its often not particularly useful when debating the details of some particular policy or philosophical question
I’m not so sure. At some point, the deontological argument is something that shouldn’t get the short shrift. Whatever the philosophy, history or argument you want to bring to bear, hurting people and taking their stuff is still wrong.
Don’t hurt people. Don’t take their stuff.
Voluntary associations are perfectly legitimate so long as they don’t involve hurting people or taking their stuff.
The problem with anything more that a “thin” libertarianism is that eventually you have to hurt someone or take their stuff to provide any benefit to any group of chosen people.
Yeah, I agree. I think just reciting the NAP as an organizing principle of society starts sounding trite and naive pretty quickly. It doesn’t hold water as a bedrock principle on its own. For instance, let’s say that in Libertopia we’ve finally come up with a way to pay for a defensive military force sufficient to prevent “thick” Socialists from steamrolling us and taking our stuff for their worker’s paradise. What if the libertarians two counties removed from the border make the not-unreasonable and perfectly rational decision to not pay anything towards defense, reasoning that, after all, their immediate neighbors are the ones at risk, not themselves, and there’s no reason why they should pay to protect someone else? Now the border libs can themselves make a reasonable argument that, by free-riding on their payment of the costs of defense from which everyone benefits, the interior libs are in essence stealing from them, which is aggression. In essence, this was the argument over “Ship money” that led (among other things, of course) to the English Civil War.
One of the reasons I’ve stopped referring to myself as a libertarian is that I don’t buy the “Easter miracle” of the NAP any more. I think that there is paradoxically a certain amount of “aggression” that I’m willing to tolerate in the form of a night watchman state funded by some form of taxation or fees if in so doing the broader cause of individual liberty is served. It’s a lot easier to accept compromise positions that get you closer to a more free place if you’re not binding yourself to a principle that reduces civic society to a tautological absolute.
My wedding was some kind of Buddhist thing or something. Maybe Satanic? I dunno and never bothered to find out. You got a partner that you are dedicated to? I’ll call her or him your wife if you want. I’ll take a Christian that disagrees with me as neighbor if they have CPRM’s attitude. Try and convert me more than once and I may get annoyed, however.
*hands straff a pamphlet*
Have you heard the good news?
breast implants made illegal?
Quite the opposite; any woman below a D cup is now mandated to get implants! You can thank me later Pie.
That’s f-d up. I’d rather go to Jonestown.
Implants are evil.
Optional implants must be tolerated in a free society.
Mandatory implants are clearly a violation of the NAP.
Big tits are a public utility and part of the social contract. Why do you hate children? What about ROADZ??
Natural dude. Big, medium, small — they’re all good so long as they are real.
Your hate speech is literally violence. I need my safe space therapy kitten now. And a copy of Juggs.
Your mother withheld from you didn’t she.
Your mother sure didn’t.
HEYYOOOOOOO!!
You’re a Silicone Junkie who doesn’t realize he needs help.
Old joke:
Street evangelist: have you been born again?
Target: not lately
Street evangelist: no, have you been washed in the blood?
Target: gee, I hope not!
Street evangelist: no, no, no! I’m trying to tell you the good news!
Target: good news? What good news?
Exasperated street evangelist: you’re going to hell!
Target: *pause* what’s the bad news?
I’m always attracting the weirdos. Moved into a new place years ago and so introduced myself to the neighbor. “I’m so and so…” blah, blah, blah and then out of the fucking she asks me if I’m Christian. “Chigaimasu (no)”. “No? well would you like to meet Jesus?” Psycho bitch. Are you gonna kill me?
Fucking *blue*.
“out of the fucking”
I was about to virtually high-five you for closing the deal so quickly.
What in the world are you doing up at this hour?
I’ve always found the mixing of Buddhism and Shintoism in Japan very interesting.
Mind you I take Japanese lessons at a school associated with Tenrikyo . Talk about wow…
Like I said, on the wagon so I stupidly drank a bunch of coffee. Meh, 4 and a half hours sleep will work. Never heard of Tenrikyo before. Uh, think I’ll pass.
question for Straff:
Is there an English language source that you know of about kami? I’m trying to find out about the kami of maple trees specifically.
It’s called the KamiKanuki. Takes the shape of Cuck and wears funny socks.
I’m assuming Kannagi doesn’t count…
I actually had no idea about the belief of gods within trees until about 10 years ago.
BTW: Best scene in the entire series: It’s a Sony
BAKE THE FUCKING CAKE
Also make it keto. Carbs are bad.
Better be gluten free.
Starting day 2 on the wagon. God granted me the wisdom to not post the comment I’d written.
See, now that’s even worse than actually posting the comment because you’re teasing us. Don’t be such a cocktease Straff!
Dammit, Straff. If you don’t [redacted] I swear I’ll [redacted]!
Blessed be the [redacted] fudge [redacted].
I have shot guns multiple times, once with a NRA instructor, Vietnam War veteran (man could that guy shoot – it was like a TV remote control to him).
But I own no guns. I’m just not that interested in them, even though they are used in several of my books.
I thought guns are increasingly hard to come by in the wasteland. Bow and arrows, razor boomerangs, and tridents now are the weapons of choice.
“It is a whole other post to describe the nature of rights”
I’m looking forward to a Might makes Right article.
With #2, even if it isn’t sanctified by the Church, you don’t have to worry about #4.
Good article BTW because I think it captures the essence of the NAP; basically how I live my life is merely descriptive, not prescriptive. Control freaks can’t stand allowing other people to live at they please either by projecting their moral values on the world at large (SoCon) or by trying to twist human nature to fit into some vision of utopia (Progs).
You’re correct CPRM that if you were king and tried to force everyone else to live the same way you do, I would be very unhappy. I imagine the same is true for everyone here if I were king. The beauty is that through *actual* tolerance (not prog “tolerance”) and non-aggression, we can all peacefully coexist. Funny how that works eh?
Not just coexist, but even be friends; as long as we can disagree with someone else’s personal feelings without hating the person.
Exactly! I still have friends who are thoroughly progressive, and some that are SoCon Trumpistas. I disagree with them vehemently on political issues, but that doesn’t mean I don’t like them and think they’re valuable human beings (granted, not all have the *same* value, but I reserve the right to judge!).
“but that doesn’t mean I don’t like them and think they’re valuable human beings”
Me too, although the number of friends with home I’ll discuss politics is basically a rounding error at this point.
Unfortunately I think maybe 10% of the populace is satisfied with “live and let live”. The other 90% just can’t rest if somebody, somewhere, is doing something that they don’t agree with.
When you were young and your heart
Was an open book
You used to say live and let live
(You know you did)
(You know you did)
(You know you did)
But if this ever changin’ world
In which we live in
Makes you give in and cry
Say live and let die
Live and let die
Great tune nonetheless.
Ninety percent seems high but there are certainly enough, and there always will be, to be an enormous problem.
holy fuck
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/20/ordinary-people-learn-economics-manchester-classes
In a makeshift classroom, nine lay people are battling some of the greatest economists of all time – and they appear to be winning. Just watch what happens to David Ricardo, the 18th-century father of our free-trade system. In best BBC voice, one of the group reads out Ricardo’s words: “Economics studies how the produce of the Earth is distributed.”
Not good enough, says another, Brigitte Lechner. Shouldn’t economists study how to meet basic needs? “We all need a roof over our heads, we all need to survive.” Nor does the Earth belong solely to humans. Her judgment is brisk. “Ricardo was talking tosh.”
“Ricardo was talking tosh.”
Pack it up folks, you can’t argue with that logic.
And that’s the end result of where progressivism and identity politics inevitably goes. Logic, evidence, reason? Bah! I don’t FEEEL like its true. And he was just a stinky old white male!
“winning”
I love the throwaway “. . . and they appear to be winning” part. Honest to God, do they only allow mental defectives to write for The Grauniad?
The Guardian readers
Man, I loved that series. And Spitting Image. In a just universe, those two shows would’ve never stopped.
There’s the problem. None of them seem to know how score is kept in a free economy.
More confident is 70-year-old “raging feminist” Lechner. “The economy is a system, right?” she says. “I understand systems like patriarchy and how it’s set so certain people get hurt … and I want to know how the rules of the economy are set.”
Lol. Evidently teaching the laws of economics isn’t part of the curriculum. Shocking.
Laws of economics? Pshaw! She doesn’t feel like they should apply. Who are you to throw your facts and figures as superior to her feelings, you cis-white-hetero-shitlord?
USSR could never seem to find away around them but probably cause they didn’t kill enough people.
Well, of course they couldn’t. Did you see their leadership? All men. If they had enough wymyn in charge, those patriarchal “laws” of economics would just melt away.
Ah yes, so in reality it’s never been tried.
No, no , no. Not those laws of economics. The other ones.
just going to post some highlights..
And if you’re expecting them to trot out the usual left-itudes about fixing the economy, you’re wrong. A discussion about Northern Rail does produce calls for nationalisation – but also arguments as to how it should be turned into a co-op, or run by an arms-length organisation of technocrats.
see! not leftism at all!
WTF! Lol.
Sounds like State Capitalism to me. Totes OK!
Wokenomics?
“But my favourite word was ‘nationalisation’. Because when things are privatised it is the rich who get all the benefit.” And for once in this room, no one is laughing.
Anyone going to the National Homebew Con in Portland this weekend?
I wish.
No, but I live there.
I will probably be at the Cascade Brewing Barrel House in the early evenings on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday (before the parties) .
I love that place. Let me check the schedule, but I may be able to meet up one of those evenings. have an impromptu Glibs meetup.
Excellent. I will be on Glibs through tomorrow. I fly out Wed morning.
Classes close up about 5 pm and the parties start around 7 pm. So I will be at the barrel house in between those times (I can stretch it a bit each way).
Not this year, maybe next. I am planning on hitting up the GABF in September though.
Terrific article, CPRM!
The thing that strikes me is that as the Red and Blue Tribes grow increasingly hostile, perhaps the only way that it might be possible to reconcile them, barring full out civil war, is some sort of libertarian compromise.
Both sides see us as a potential threat, not a compromise. You can’t let the plebs start thinking about liberty and freedom in an individual manner.
Killing your enemies takes far less self control and personal fortitude than tolerating them.
There are few libertarians because very few people look at other people acting in ways that they don’t agree with and don’t respond with “there oughtta be a law against that”. Most people think their preferences should be made law, because they know best, and it would be better for everyone if they would just get with the program. I don’t think there is any reconciling that.
To which I would add, this is partly because of the extension of government into so many areas of life. No government-endorsed weddings, there’s really few ways for people to demand that only their view of marriage should hold, etc.
An excellent point, which I like to make in conversations with both sides when discussing how atrocious our politics are. If the government didn’t have it’s fingers in so many pies, we wouldn’t consider every election an existential crisis.
We are Nikki to them.
Divorce is a more likely third option.
OT: Can’t say I’m surprised that this is in Germany.
https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/2837999/on-board-the-torture-ship-the-worlds-largest-bondage-and-fetish-orgy-where-hundreds-of-leather-lovers-romp-the-night-away/
Orgy, Brothel. 220, 221.
Scottish Sun? So Page 3 ewes?
perhaps the only way that it might be possible to reconcile them, barring full out civil war, is some sort of libertarian compromise.
I tried yelling “SHUT THE FUCK UUUUUUUP!” as loud as I can, but it doesn’t seem to have had much of an effect.
Both sides see us as a potential threat, not a compromise.
If you’re not with them… well, you know. You traitorous backstabber, you.
Maxine Waters agrees – live and let live, except for Republicans who should be attacked anywhere you can find them. For they have blasphemed against
GodThe State (same thing).https://pjmedia.com/trending/maxine-waters-harass-trump-admin-staff-everywhere-give-them-no-peace-god-is-on-our-side/
If some of the more sane Dem’s don’t nip this in the bud, it will not end well. Someone is going to get hurt.
Remember James Hodgkinson?
Who knows, maybe a bunch of Republicans will get shot at by a lefty nutjob.
I think a whole lot of “someones” are gonna get hurt. I could see this devolving into a civil war.
Unfortunately, the ones most responsible for stoking the fires are the least likely to actually get hurt. The elites can always flee; the common person usually gets it in the neck.
Mob violence for sure. We’re already seeing that on a small scale and I think it will get worse. I have a hard time conceptualizing a civil war though. We’re not really fractured along any coherent geographic lines and I think the deep state has far too firm a grasp to see any schism within government. It’s easier for me to envision an uprising that gives the state the excuse it needs to strip is of the last remaining constitutional rights we still have and really crack down on deplorables.
We could rendezvous in the Republic of Franklin, although conversion to Hugenot might be required.
I had to Wikipedia that, never heard about RoF. Interesting stuff! Thanks!
I envision it as one big bar brawl (i.e., each man for himself) where building rage makes the reasons for it irrelevant, no individual knows who his allies are, and only the biggest and baddest come out of it alive.
That’s easier to envision; mass violence followed by the rise of a strong man.
I bet that was Trump’s plan all along!!!11!!
Related; I’ve been seeing trailers for a new “Purge” movie….I love how they portray the ‘purge’ as something the rich do to the poor/minorities when historically every time the rule of law breaks down it’s the exact opposite.
I have many badfeelz, as reading my FB feed and Twitter, where I have both #MAGAs and #Otherkin in my feed gives me a sense of impending doom.
There is no debate. Each faction is in an echo chamber and can’t hear each other, and even if they could, they wouldn’t listen.
I’m discombobulated so forgive my rambling.
In my real life, I don’t see any of this. If I weren’t online, I wouldn’t know that/if the narrative was being taken over by the identity peddlers. I’d watch the news and dismiss it out of hand because I never really trusted the news anyway.
So I wonder: If I were not on Twitter and FB, I’d be blissfully unaware that the “intellectual” war was so deep. How many people are like me? How many people are just trying to survive and find some joy in their lives? How many people are just carting their kids to sports, mowing their lawns, going to church and to work, and paying their bills? How many people are really interested in any of this even if they knew what was going on?
I don’t enter the fray because I have a compulsion to back up what I say with facts (thank you, Usenet of Yore) and I’m lazy. I think, “It’s not my fight.” I think, “I don’t have the time or energy for this bullshit.” And because I don’t have time, I feel like I’m going to lose because those who do have time and the energy are going to steamroll people like me.
But when? How? Where? Is it really that close to home for me? I look around in my neighborhood. I don’t know my neighbors; don’t talk to them much, but there’s a guy down my street with a Gadsden flag (who, I found out, also goes to my church). There’s a guy up the street who put up a sign in his yard saying, “I’m a deplorable.” There were a few Trump signs in a few yards. My girl’s history teacher is my age and has a Gadsden flag hanging in his classroom. We talked. He teaches communism as the greatest evil of the world. Nobody complains. I have “Who is John Galt?” bumper stickers on my cars.
Right now the only weapon people like me have is Trump, and for right now that’s enough. I didn’t vote for the guy, but I’m giggling like mad how he’s driving the left bonkers. I’m freaking giddy that the left’s behavior will only result in more Trump. Except they will never get it.
Honest to goodness, the left scares me, but if I weren’t on social media, I wouldn’t know they exist. I’d look around my neighborhood and assume people are tending their business. But then I see the Gadsden flag and the “Deplorables” sign and Trump signs and know some people know enough to know they’re gearing up for *something*.
I feel it in my bones that something’s coming. But the only thing I can do is keep working for a living, enjoying my family, going to church, and trying to find little bits of joy where I can.
so STEVE SMITH survives?
My wife is kind of a natural “leave me alone and hands off my paycheck” libertarian / conservative. She rarely watches the news beyond the weather and stay blissfully unaware of current issues. She works all day on a computer and has no desire to be on electronic devices when not at work.
My leftist sister-in-law just asked us about the family separation thing. I had to explain it to my wife – after which she still had absolutely no opinion other than being against illegal immigration.
I have a hard time conceptualizing a civil war though. We’re not really fractured along any coherent geographic lines and I think the deep state has far too firm a grasp to see any schism within government.
That’s why, if it happens, the next U.S. civil war will be much worse than the last, even taking into account differences in technology between the two eras. When every neighbour on every block could be an “enemy” and when the government decides to wage war on millions of its own citizens who are not easily-identifiable by any external, observable characteristic(s), then as the Sheriff said in No Country For Old Men, “. . . if it ain’t [a mess], it’ll do ’til the mess gets here.”
That sounds more like a pogrom than a civil war to me.
That sounds more like a pogrom than a civil war to me.
In modern times, I’m not sure there’ll be much of a difference, ‘cepting the ostensible targets of the pogrom will be armed and fight back in an underground, insurrectionist style. A mess, in short.
Here’s a short fictional account of civil war.
Kurt Schlichter has written novels on the topic.
Speaking of which…
Liberals’ Hatred Will Inevitably Turn Into Violence
Tried to read Schlicter….too clunky and the political references too ham-fisted for me….couldn’t get into it. I get the feeling he’s much more of a Fox News Conservative than her is a libertarian.
“That leaves them only violence. We’ve already seen it, and you can sense that it’s only a matter of time before the liberals openly embrace it. They have set the conditions for it. They have dehumanized the opposition, that is, us. Their lesser tactics aren’t working.”
Unfortunately, I agree with this. There’s a reason I’ve stockpiled about 20,000 rounds of 5.56 over the past 3 years.
That was a great read.
I think we’re not too far off from that. Nothing like the Civil War, but violent, widespread unrest, sure. I think the more violent the rhetoric becomes and the more normalized actual violence becomes, the more legitimately frightened “normies” will get, and when people are scared they make decisions based on an entirely different calculus. Scared people are dangerous people.
Yeah, poorly worded. I know Republicans have already been targeted. I guess it just seems to me like this call from a member of congress to actively harass people is another level of scary. Before it was just “Republicans are Nazi’s!” Now it’s “Republicans are Nazi’s and they shouldn’t ever have a moment of peace!”
it would be too wishful thinking to imagine the Reps using her incitement to drum up support for conceal carry reciprocity.
I’ll go the 90% because the toothless fucks I’m related to want control and free shit; I think they’re normal.
I can’t really like or respect authoritarians even as mere drinking buddies: I hate them; their least utterances make my blood boil. I can live and let live if they don’t tread on me, but I can’t not care about someone who would attack me, my freedom, and my stuff if he were king for a day.
I damned near lost my mind and stomped around with throbbing red temple veins the entire day of the last wedding at Buckingham. I throw up a little in the back of my mouth when I hear “sir” Nick Faldo.
Any hint of oppression enrages me. Any tolerance of repressive notions sets me of.
But if you can judge my private actions silently and fuck off, then you can go in peace….and we might be allies when the shit goes down.
I can’t really like or respect authoritarians even as mere drinking buddies: I hate them; their least utterances make my blood boil.
The other day, I got to listen to some asshole whine about how people shouoldn’t be “allowed” to buy houses and turn them into vacation rentals (quite a popular thing in these parts). Because that’s stealing homes from deserving workers, or some such hogwash. They think nothing whatever of putting their fellow man in bondage.
The one I can’t stand: athletes make too much money.
That’s fetid and vapid.
“If I can’t convince you that my personal morals are correct, I have no right to force them on you.”
Morals, the idea of right and wrong, ultimately boil down to opinions unless you are willing to engage in circular reasoning.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/25/scott-adams-says-donald-trumps-critics-may-scare-h/
It’s been stated here repeatedly how the Dems & media are going to get Trump re-elected. I believe it.
I bet my wife $100 last night that Trump will be a two-term president if he isn’t impeached and imprisoned for something. She was incredulous, but I was just like, “Who’s going to run against him? The Republicans won’t dare nominate someone else, and the Dems have, who, Nancy Pelosi? Maxine Fucking Waters?? I mean, the best chance they have would probably be Crazy Uncle Joe, and I don’t see that happening.”
If they nominate Inslee he will hand Trump his ass. The guy is hard left but is able to disguise it with a calm demeanor. He has also largely refrained from fire breathing.
Too late now, but great piece CPRM. Mirrors my perspectives in general (if not specifically in point of view). Great job.