Glibertarians.com 2018 Archive

Category: Libertarianism

  • Trashy Tries Philosophy Pt. 1: Is this really it?

    Trashy Tries Philosophy Pt. 1: Is this really it?

    As always, when it comes to philosophy and theology, I like to start with a disclaimer that I’m not the most well-read on these topics, so I may stumble onto other people’s ideas without attribution. I may use terms that already exist, but in different ways. Also, I may stumble into traps with just as much lack of awareness. I’m intentionally vague in some areas because I don’t want to be liable for knowing the ins and outs of certain philosophies that I only know superficially.

    When thinking about this specific topic, I was reminded of the beginning of Mere Christianity by CS Lewis. His book has definitely influenced this article.

    I’m a big picture guy. I don’t like the feeling when I have a glimpse of a portion of the system, but don’t have an understanding of the system as a whole. This has worked both in my benefit and to my detriment in life. Math class was really hard when the teacher didn’t explain why the math worked, but only how the math worked. My learning curve as a software engineer was all that much steeper as I worked through all of the previously built functions of our product to learn how they worked rather than just trust that they’d do what their name implied. However, once I got over the hump, I was better at my job than my peers. My need to understand the big picture has been quite helpful in law… except where my manager needs me to just do things without understanding why.

    This need for systemic understanding also asserts itself in my political, philosophical, and theological life (I don’t consider those to be three separate areas, but three expressions of one area of my life… my worldview). You all may recognize some of the consequences of my need for systemic understanding. For example, I don’t find pragmatism very interesting or important. How things are accomplished don’t matter as much to me as whether things should be accomplished. Once I have settled on policy X being good*, and movement in the direction of X is good and any movement away from X is bad.

    * I’m using good and bad in the colloquial form. Below, as we get into the meat of this article, I’ll be using good and bad in a much more measured and intentional way.

    Is This Really It?

    The most basic philosophical question that I find interesting is “Is this really it?”, or , rephrased and reversed “Is there anything beyond the scientifically observable universe?” David Hume and Immanuel Kant, among others, basically said no. Most other well known schools of philosophers said yes, while building up a variety of different metaphysical constructs. We’ll come back to those constructs later, but let’s dwell on the question a bit longer and see if we can derive any practical applicability out of it. What does it mean for you and I if there is nothing beyond what can be observed and what can be reasoned?

    Well, it can be used to build a foundation for morality. Let’s define a few terms to start. Morality, for the purposes of this article, is the framework used to determine whether a certain action/inaction is good or bad. Good is something that conforms to a certain moral framework. Bad is something that does not conform to a certain moral framework. Amoral is something that exists outside of the moral framework (choosing a color of socks to wear today, for example). Morality can usually be distilled into a set of first principles (i.e. foundational principles), which, in applied form, creates a worldview.

    So, what does the absences of metaphysics mean for morality? Well, there seem to be three ways you can go: 1) nihilism – there is no morality; 2) normative morality – morality is baed on what is observed, felt, and intuited; 3) reasoned morality – morality is based on what is reasoned. For reasons I’ll expand on below, I believe that the first option is the only consistent moral framework in the total absence of metaphysics.

    Let’s start with the second option, normative morality. My general impression is that most normative frameworks are light on foundation and heavy on post hoc rationalization of really shitty behavior. Setting that aside for the moment, let’s figure out what normative morality is. Generally, it’s a genre of philosophies that use subjective or objective observations of reality to set the basis for their moral framework. This comes in many flavors, such as Greek hedonism (whatever feels pleasant is good),  relativistic postmodernism (good is based on lived experience), and utilitarianism (good is based on maximization of well-being). The first thing that strikes me about these “internal” philosophies is that they’re all fuzzy. They’re all based on a state of mind. While all of these philosophers would be on solid ground by starting every sentence with “I feel that . . . “, those who apply these philosophies make a fatal mistake when they expand the feelings of one onto all of humanity. The assumed egalitarianism is problematic. Taking hedonism as an example, what feels pleasurable to me may feel unpleasurable to you. As a trivial example, you may love the feeling of skydiving, and I may hate it. Is skydiving good or bad? The best we can say is that skydiving is good for you and bad for me in a hedonistic context. However, have we done anything by saying that skydiving is good for you and bad for me? Not really. We’re simply adding a layer of abstraction to the already assumed premise that skydiving feels good for you and feels bad for me.

    What happens when add the complication of an action having impact on more than one person? Rape feels good to STEVE SMITH, but feels bad to his victim. Now we’re at an impasse. We can add in concepts like lived experience (postmodernism) to attempt to bolster the victim’s position in this standoff. We can even try to quantify good and bad (utilitarianism) in a way that STEVE SMITH only feels marginally better and the victim feels massively worse, but the problem still remains. At some point, where one group’s good feelings are directly connected to the bad feelings of another group, the first group’s infliction of bad feelings on the second group is a good as long as there are enough of the first group and few enough of the second group. A rapesquatch village can have their way with a single victim until the victim is tortured to death because the intensely bad feeling of being raped to death by a roving gang of horny cryptids is outweighed by the marginally good feeling that a rapesquatch feels multiplied by the number of rapesquatches that partake, whether that be 10, 100, 1000, or 10 million.

    Finally, these normative philosophies give an overvalued weight to the subjective feelings and observations of a person. It doesn’t take much navel gazing to realize that there are people who feel and observe things that are not valid. Some of this is due to lack of information, such as when you get mad at the wrong person when you see that somebody took a bite out of your pumpkin pie while you were in the bathroom. Some is because your perceptions can be biased by your preconceptions, such as how every single hurricane is because of climate change these days. At the very least, it should be said that feelings and subjective observations have limited applicability outside of the person who has those feelings and subjective observations. What about the next person who has contradictory feelings and observations? Do they have a contradictory morality? What if a person’s feelings and observations change? Does their morality change? There’s nothing weightier here than one person’s whims. What we’re describing is a set of preferences and tastes, with the commensurate weight. “Good” and “bad” are nothing more than labels, like “fashionable” and “tacky”.  Cutting through the rhetoric, I’m attempting to expose the fact that these internal-based moralities aren’t really moralities at all. They’re rationalizations for preference and taste built on the empty foundation of nihilism.

    All moralities under the normative umbrella suffer from the “is/should” problem (this is why I called them “normative moralities”). Just because something is a certain way doesn’t mean that it should be that certain way. Ignoring the subjective aspects of the observer, empirical evidence doesn’t teach any moral or ethical principles. To derive such principles, one has to apply intuition, insight, or reason to the evidence. Now we’re falling into the same issue, these “external” moralities are really just “internal” moralities based more heavily on sensory input than on states of mind. While these sensory inputs are more strongly anchored in an objective reality than the observer’s whims, the influence of those whims are merely reduced, rather than eliminated. In essence, we have a set of preferences and tastes with the added weight of a relationship with evidence derived from the objective reality. It’s hard to get less abstract than this, because there are so many different forms of this type of philosophy out there. Utilitarianism often falls into this category. However, this is where the “is/should” problem comes in. How much more ethical weight does this evidence provide? Just because animals fight to the death doesn’t mean that murder is good.  Somebody with the presupposition that nature is good would say that the fact that animals fight to the death means that murder is good. Somebody with the presupposition that nature is evil would say that the fact that animals fight to the death means that murder is bad. If we enter the analysis without presupposing the morality of nature, then the fact that animals fight to the death has zero bearing on the morality of murder. This is the crux of the “is/should” problem. The only time that evidence of a practice or condition in objective reality can be used in favor of the morality of the practice or condition is when you presuppose that nature is moral, which is . . . metaphysics! Observational moralities have to be built on a metaphysical foundation in order to be coherent.

    This leads directly into reasoned moralities. Reasoned moralities, despite being vaunted due to the application of reason, are also normative moralities, with all the same faults and flaws. Reason is really good at applying an existing moral framework. “If A then B” works really good at proving B if A is presupposed, but just like before, you have to presuppose something in order for reason to be applied. In parallel to above, if reason can be used in favor of the morality of B when you presuppose A, the presupposition of A is . . . metaphysics! Without some sort of supernatural principle/framework/entity/etc that supports A, your reasoned morality is built on the same nihilism as the other forms of normative moralities.

    Another way to view the inherent shortcomings in these normative moralities is to view them through the lens of authority. Why should I conform to your morality? Why should you conform to your morality? If the answer, when you get to the foundation, is “because it makes me feel good”, then morality is nothing more than etiquette or preference. This is true whether the morality is a simple hedonism, or whether it is couched in much more complexity, such as Darwinist morality (good is to evolve). To attribute any more weight to good feelings than mere preference or taste is an exercise in indulging one’s ego.

    To finish out this first edition of trashy’s sophomoric blatherings, I’ll address nihilism. Nihilism, in my opinion, is one of two self-consistent moral frameworks. The other is moral absolutism based on divine natural law. We’ll obviously dive into more detail on that later. However, nihilism also has some weaknesses. One is that most humans seem to have some sort of moral compass/conscience, and the conscience is essential to their being. People who override their conscience tend to accumulate undesirable consequences in their lives. Sure, much of that may be explained by the “morality as etiquette” model (socially, poor etiquette results in negative social consequences). However, there’s something profoundly disturbing to most humans about living in a world where there is no right and no wrong, and where nothing means anything. People stare into the abyss and become profoundly afraid. I don’t think I’ve met a single person who has been able to retain a truly nihilist view for a significant period of time. Usually, their nihilism evolves into a squishy moral relativism or into existentialism.

    Clearly, if we are to reject all metaphysics as a moral foundation, we’re choosing to dive headfirst into the abyss. That may be a satisfactory answer for a select few, but the next article will address the alternative, the various metaphysical constructs that can serve as a foundation for morality.

  • Radical Individualism is a Blight on the Libertarian Movement

    I’ve written in the past about my view of rights. Specifically, I see them as characteristics of relationships. To paint with a broad brush, they’re the boundaries of the authority a party can assume within a certain relationship. I really like the way it tidies up certain libertarian gray zones, like minors and animals.

    Anyway, there are two ways that libertarians tend to view rights: Deferentialism and Restraintism. Deferentialism is “live and let live.” Restraintism is “mind your own business.” My conception of rights as characteristics of relationships falls heavily on the Restraintist side. One of the big themes of my article on these libertarian views of rights is that Deferentialism cedes any moral standing, but Restraintism retains moral standing. I wrote:

    Deferentialism is ineffective in two ways. First, people, even Deferentialists, tend to have a line drawn in the sand where they shift from relativistic deference to the individual to a more absolutist stance. For example, Cosmotarians tend to be Deferentialists up to the point where their particular identity politics ox is gored. Second, Deferentialism gives no answer to Cultural Marxism. Deferentialists are either forced to kowtow to the virulent left, or they end up drifting authoritarian.

    Radical Individualism is very strongly correlated with Deferentialism. The radical individualist not only rejects the government meddling that all libertarians loathe, but they also reject any attempt of society, the community, family, or friends to influence their behavior. I believe that the moral relativism inherent in “live and let live” results in a wholecloth rejection of authority, even in situations where the authority may be legitimate. In order to stay philosophically consistent, the radical individualist ends up sounding like the punk 17 year old whining that his parents can’t tell him what to do anymore. This is the most superficial way that radical individualism harms broader libertarianism.

    "man is by nature a social being since he stands in need of many vital things which he cannot come by through his own unaided effort. Hence he is naturally part of a group by which assistance is given him that he may live well. He needs this assistance with a view to life as well as to the good life." - Thomas Aquinas
    “You can tell me what to do, daddy”

    Libertarianism has a reputation for being something you grow out of once you get real life experience. I don’t know how many times I’ve heard that it makes sense on paper, but the real world is too complex for it to work. I think that a large portion of that sentiment comes from the outsized influence of the most virulent form of radical individualism, Objectivism. I’ll freely admit that I’ve never read a word of Rand, and I’m not beating the library’s door down to get a copy of Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. However, her influence is felt far and wide through the libertarian movement, and it undergirds the complaints that libertarianism is a pipe dream of maladjusted teenagers.

    Taking it down another level, the radical individualist answer to the complexities of the real world tends to be “fuck everything except for my rights.” You’re never going to hear me get squishy on self-ownership, but when this all or nothing attitude transcends the government-citizen relationship, the line blurs between fervent defender of self-ownership and weapons grade asshole.

    Not to pick on her, but Nikki’s view on children is an outcropping of radical individualism. (For those who do not remember, Nikki basically believed that children had full agency and that parental discipline/guidance/control was essentially a form of abuse). Despite the fact that the parent-child authority dynamic is perfectly natural and is seen in many species besides our own, Nikki’s complete inability to decouple the illegitimate authority of the state from the legitimate authority of parents led to a facially ridiculous outcome. Whether viewed emotionally, in a utilitarian lens, practically, or in a principled lens, treating children as having full agency is a non-starter.

    "man’s natural instinct moves him to live in civil society, for he cannot, if dwelling apart, provide himself with the necessary requirements of life, nor procure the means of developing his mental and moral faculties" - Pope Leo XIII
    “I’m gonna make sure you listen to me next time, you brat!”

    Just because the most visible and outspoken authority is abused doesn’t mean that there is no legitimate authority in the world. However, most legitimate authority is voluntary authority. I listen to my boss’s instructions because I want to be paid. The day I no longer need my paycheck is the day that my boss loses his authority over me.

    Of course, I’m talking in abstraction when it comes to authority relationships as if a person has carte blanche authority over another. Every authority relationship has boundaries. In the government context, those boundaries are called rights. In a familial context, violation of those boundaries is called abuse. In social settings, those boundaries are called manners, propriety, or a handful of other names.

    However, I don’t think this point needs any more belaboring. It’s not particularly interesting or controversial to say that all relationships have boundaries.

    What’s more interesting is Distributism, specifically their foundational belief that the nuclear family is the base social unit, not the individual. I’m sympathetic to this belief primarily because I think that the modern shift away from traditional family has been on the back of government programs and government incentives. If I were to jump to the crux of the issue with radical individualism, I think this is it: radical individualism is unsustainable absent government subsidy.

    Literal individualism (never marrying, never procreating) is self-defeating as a concept. You live your life, you die, and your specific form of individualism is gone like a fart on the wind. Not saying you can’t live this way or that society should disfavor people who live this way, but it’s a transient way of life. You cannot base a society on a concept that, if practiced by all, would result in the extinction of your society within one generation.

    Subsidized individualism (single parenthood, divorce, etc.) only works because government is paying for it. I was watching The Sands of Iwo Jima the other day, and there was a scene where a woman tries to trap John Wayne’s character into a marriage because her husband had run out on her (or died in the war, I forget which). Being a single parent in the 19th and early 20th centuries was ROUGH. There was no “affordable preschool”, there were no flexible work hours, there was no FMLA. There were no anti-discrimination laws for hiring single moms. By and large, people remarried quickly and relied on family to help them out in the interim. Family was necessary…. fundamental, even.

    The subsidies go even further than you see at first glance. Even though all demographics take advantage of the “free” public schooling available to babysit their kids for 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for 13 years, the effects of removing that subsidy would be felt quite unevenly across demographics. Nuclear families, while being thoroughly inconvenienced (especially those who have an inflated two income lifestyle), have the blueprint to retake supervisory authority over their kids. One parent works. One watches the kids. Icky patriarchial family structure.

    What about subsidized individualists? What happens to the single mom or dad when the government subsidies go away? Sure, the affluent can afford hired help for raising the kids, but the masses can’t afford such a thing. The masses… they could go broke paying for daycare/private school, and a few probably would. Most would change their situation by either creating a nuclear family or relying on extended family to help out. Either way, family is the core. When you take the subsidies away, all that is left is family.

    This is why radical individualism is a blight on libertarianism. It’s either self-defeating on a societal level (in the case of literal individualism), or it’s based on a lifestyle that is antithetical to libertarianism on a societal level (in the case of subsidized individualism).

     

    "Mommy's going to drown me in the bathtub later, isn't she?"
    You know what would make this dynamic even better? A whole bunch of government incentives aligned to tear this family apart!

    I didn’t really address voluntary community in this article for two reasons. 1) I’m not convinced that community isn’t a form of extended family. 2) Voluntary community has a history of helping on the fringes, not massively altering the incentives across society.

    Instead of turning this into an essay, I’ll just leave a few questions for the commentariat’s consideration. If the family is the base unit of society, what does a dysfunctional family mean for society? Does any of this actually matter when it comes to governance, or is it just useful as a framework to convince others to embrace libertarianism? How do individuals interact in a family-centric society?

  • The Political Spectrum: A CPRM Framework

    The Rainbow of Power

    Definitions

    Anarchism: A total lack of governance.  No one holds any sway nor power over anyone else.  True anarchism can not exist in this world.

    On the chart this is bounded by Anarcho Communism to the left and Anarcho Capitalism to the right.

    Liberalism: This a where a small state begins to govern the people.  It can come in many forms, but it is a state of limited control being held through law. Classical liberalism in other words.

    This is where I put small ‘l’ libertariansim as well as many other forms of government.  I put Constitutional Property Rights Minarchism slowly skewing a bit more into statism because certain powers of government under the system could become a little larger than some libertarians may like, but is still limited in scope and size and is used for the protection of rights, not enforcement of ideals.

    *Statism: The state governs more and enforces morality and populist ideals. Towards the leftward boundary of statism, the state also interferes in the economy to a greater extent.  It is the transition of state power from protecting citizens to controlling them.

    This seems to be where the swath American government has slowly waded through since the founding.

    Fascism: The state controls the economy through excessive regulation, and enforces strict cultural norms through force of law. Property rights are still present, but become meaningless with state intrusion and control.

    Socialism: The state owns the means of production. Human behavior is heavily controlled through force of law to fit the designs of those in power. There is no free market, but citizens are given the pretense of having rights when they do not conflict with the preferred outcomes.

    Communism: All within the state. There is no private property.  All human action is governed and controlled to best suit the preferred outcomes. Rights are abolished in favor of proclaimed equality. Complete governance. There is no avenue of human behavior that is not within the purview of the state.

    Anarcho Communism: This is the end state that Marx believed would follow Communism. Because in his view once the glorious and equal world was created, the state would whither away like the petals of a dying flower.  In reality it would only fall into lawlessness and savagery, but hey ANTIFA has to dream of something!

    *A note on why I used Statism this way, when this definition is a bit outside of the average one and why certain ‘isms’ are not used.  I did not want to use capitalism, because that is more a definition of a monetary system, not about governance and this spectrum is based on governance (ie how much power is held by the government over the people) and respect of rights.  I couldn’t think of any other currently used ‘isms’ that fit this transition from liberalism to fascism, so re-purposing the broad statism seemed a workable answer. As for other ‘isms’ like republicanism and monarchism, those are about how the government is formed, but not about what the government does.  Indeed you can have a good king or a tyrannical republic.

     

    This is how I see the political spectrum.  It comes from the late 90’s and early 00’s when ‘socially liberal and fiscally conservative’ was the way libertarianism was described.  Back when the left pretended to be for social freedom and the right pretended to be about fiscal freedom I would tell people “I’m so far right that I’m left.”  Meaning I was for such small government I would often align with hippies about issues such a drug legalization.  Also, this helps keep the ‘left/right’ idea of thinking everyone is used to and explains how yes, to Socialists Fascism is indeed ‘right wing’ and to us, it is indeed of the left.

  • Larry Sharpe, Libertarian Candidate for Governor of New York

    On a recent Sunday evening I was blessed with a visit to Cornell University here in Ithaca, by New York State Libertarian Party gubernatorial candidate, Larry Sharpe.   Sharpe, needless to say, should be something of a household name to The Glibertariat, as he has been involved in Libertarian politics for some time, including running for the VP slot within the national party in 2016, and losing to noted Council on Foreign Relations establishmentarian and Gungrabber, Bill Weld.  Though I am legally prevented from voting or running for political office in America, as per the dictate of my status as a Permanent Resident, I am still a political junkie and ideologically pre-disposed towards those who would pursue smaller government and more peaceful solutions to society’s problems.  Thus, it seemed only natural that I should avail myself the opportunity to meet Larry in person, and see what he has to say about letting the people of New York lead their own lives with minimal interference, and what solutions he has for the various problems created in New York after many years under the iron grip of The Cuomo Dynasty.

    A Sunday evening is typically not a busy time on a University Campus, and it was doubly quiet at Goldwin Smith Hall, where Larry presented in a lecture room that looked like it could seat about 200+ people, but by the time the show started, only about 60 souls were in the room.  Small potatoes, but Larry was here a couple of weeks ago, too, at a winery over on Seneca Lake (I couldn’t go);  also of note that Tompkins County, of which Ithaca is the seat of government, is populated by only 105,000 people, all of whom seem to have Bernie 2016 Bumper Stickers still on their vehicles, and, Tompkins has the dubious distinction of the only county in Upstate New York to go Clinton in the 2016 election…a crowd of 60, given these circumstances, isn’t terrible.

    I took a seat near the top of the room, after purchasing a bumper sticker and t-shirt, and not long after, Larry came by my seat and introduced himself.  He did that for everyone in the room, and was pretty high energy and affable; not bad for a guy who has been touring the state relentlessly, sometimes making two or three appearances a day, as was the case on Sunday.

    Larry has been on this tour with his running mate, an affable young fellow named Andrew Hollister, a native of Rochester.  Andrew warmed up the crowd, so to speak, by waxing heartily about how much he loves New York State, and that despite the many economic reasons to leave, he wants to stay and raise a family here.  He fully acknowledges the uphill battle it will be to move NYS up from it’s 50th ranking of all the states in economic freedom, amongst others.  Our friends at CATO have a handy website which can show you each state’s rank over a number of different issues, and New York ranks at the bottom, or close to it, for most of them.

    When Larry got on stage, he asked a few questions of the crowd, one of which stuck out to me as highly relevant, given the changing nature of the media, and recent events where social media platforms have engaged in the banning of non-Tribal narrative personalities and groups.   “How many of you heard about me on TV?” he asked.   No hands.  “How many of you have heard me on a podcast.”  Nearly everyone in the room stuck up an arm.   Larry pointed out that both Presidents Obama and Trump made very effective use of social media, which helped to bring both of their campaigns to victory, and at this stage, Larry is one of the few politicos to have used podcast interviews and YouTube videos as effective and free advertising.

    If you haven’t seen any of his appearances, click for his appearance on The Joe Rogan Experience, his appearance on The Rubin Report, and his appearance with Glenn Beck. For a very warming feeling deep in the cockles of your blackened Libertarian Hearts, here Larry is speaking at Columbia University against both The War on Drugs and The War on Terror.  If only a recently confirmed Supreme Court Justice had the principles required to see these ‘Wars’ for the phony bullshit that they are …. but Kulturkampf rules supreme around …. oh, nevermind.

    Now that you have all of these videos/podcasts to look up, you don’t need me to give you any play by play of his policy position spiel, except that I might give you some brief highlights of what I thought were good and positive, and those parts of which I was skeptical, and required further elaboration and/or atonement.

    The Good

    Sharpe wants the budding (pun intended) movement for the legalization of marijuana to come to New York, and his analogy is that ‘weed should be regulated like onions’ …. as in, not at all.  I asked Sharpe about removing the current NYS cartel system for hemp growers (I’ve been working part time at a hemp farm nearby the past few months, and the removing of the cartel would actually put my employers at risk from competition, but hey, PRINCIPLES) as at present, you can only grow hemp for the purposes of pressing CBD oil, and only 6 production permits for making CBD have been issued in the entire state.   Sharpe indicated that under his administration, the cartel system would be dismantled and the free market would rule the day.

    Sharpe is also the only candidate who plans to completely repeal the NY SAFE Act.  As my collection of weaponry still resides in Canada, due in part to avoiding the tender mercies of The King’s Men here, this is music to my ears.

    The Bad

    A peculiar law recently passed in NYS has to do with the allowable amount of window tint on your vehicle.  NYC cops have wanted a serious reduction in allowable tint on vehicles in Gotham City, and for whatever reason, they got their wish at the beginning of 2017; yet the regulation applies statewide, not just in NYC.  Sharpe is big on decentralization, and indicated that he would favour removing this regulation and instead having people with tinted windows be compelled to roll their windows down immediately, if pulled over by the cops in NYC.  Not really a good enough answer for me, because my vehicle is my vehicle, and does not belong to the motherfucking government, but alas, I suppose this is what they mean by ‘pragmatism’, if Sharpe is to try and keep the peace with the constabulary.

    A young woman and I asked similar questions regards what to do about the many non-violent drug offenders currently incarcerated in NYS, and again, Sharpe gave an answer that failed my purity test and smells of ‘pragmatism’.  His plan would copy a program in Massachusetts whereby non-violent offenders would be analyzed for their likelihood to re-offend, and would have to complete a sort of societal re-entry program, rather than just be let out of prison.  His rationale comes from speaking to corrections officers (yeah, like we should be trusting them) who claim that most non-violent inmates *become* violent as part of their stay in prison ….  which sounds like some circular logic to me.  If a person can be thrown into the slammer head first and survive, seems to me that giving them their freedom back should not be nearly as hard.   I guess agreeing with state welfare parasites in order for them to further their employment trumps principle here.  Colour me unimpressed, though I am glad that Sharpe acknowledges the problem, which is more than can be said of Cuomo or Sacrificial Republican Lamb Guy.

    The Fanciful

    One of Sharpe’s more notable education reform ideas includes making attendance in school optional after 16 years old, and expands the various tracks students can take for their final two years in The Gulag …..  I mean high school.  Those tracks would include intense academics, like a prep school, or trade school, or a STEM track.  This also includes privatizing the entire system, and issuing vouchers to any kid who wants to pursue those tracks, which happen to be good for 7 years; so if you end up taking a year off to go and work or otherwise engage adult life, you can come back afterwards within this time frame.  Sharpe claimed that this system could be done at a cost of 10k per student per year, far less than the current cost of 22k per student per year of secondary school education.  He gave no indication of how this cost would come down, at all, or especially that much, except in the standard libertarian explainer that privatization always makes things cheaper; he also didn’t mention that the public school teachers unions would probably fight this tooth and nail, nevermind any ideas on how to take them on.  I like the idea of getting kids prepared for the world in faster and more robust fashion than is currently offered to them, but it would have been nice if more details were provided, especially given the hills he would have to climb in order to implement this system.

    The rest of Larry’s policy proposals and ideas can be found here.

    Throughout all of his discussion about these and other policy ideas, Sharpe remained upbeat and optimistic, and drove the point home that many of his ideas would save the state money, not require any further taxation, and spur more employment and investment.  He told the crowd about a marijuana industry investors conference he was asked to speak at in NYC several weeks ago, and how he was extremely disappointed that the many millions of dollars being pledged to investment were going everywhere but New York – California, Oregon, Colorado, Canada, etc.  It seems that he really does have an eye for helping the fortunes of people who live in New York, and is not resigning himself to further economic ghettoization of this state by The Cuomo Dynasty and the do-nothing state Republican Party.

    And it also seems, at the time of writing, that Cuomo remains steadfastly opposed to debating Sharpe, or any of the other gubernatorial candidates, bar Mark Molinaro, the Sacrificial Republican Lamb.  Cuomo, even though he seems more interested in running for President, feels so entitled to his grip on power in Albany, that he won’t even deign to acknowledge any contenders.

    In conclusion, I will leave it to the good judgment and sensibilities of those fellow Glibs whom also are subjects of King Cuomo, to choose wisely in this coming election.  Every now and then I have to trade my anarchist hat for my practical reality hat, and given the chance, I’d pull the lever for Sharpe.  Maybe you would consider Sharpe as well.

  • Pondering pragmatism in politics redux

    A while ago I wrote about the issues of pragmatism in politics. Planning the second part, I ran into a serious dilemma: I could not find the proper alliterative title. I thought of words starting with p to indicate this is a second part of a previous post, but I found none.  Redux does not really work but r is sort of like p…

    But enough of my personal failings. Let us once more grab pragmatism by the balls… My first post was not a critique of the concept of pragmatism in itself – this can be a different story – but what I called pseudo-pragmatism. This is basically completely ignoring principles and the multitude of problems with many politicians in the name of so called pragmatism, leading descending spiral of corruption and incompetence which is not in any way “pragmatic.”

    This led me to think, get the old rusty cogs turning among the cobwebs. Where is the place of pragmatism in libertarianism? Can we find it some room of its own? The answer to this depends on who you ask. Because, otherwise, libertarianism would be thoroughly boring.

    I thought about expanding on the issue by analyzing pragmatism and ideology, not pragmatism and every day politics. Because I believe that an ideology which is not at least somewhat rooted in reality is mostly pointless, and basically not that better than utopian communism. It is quite easy – as the corpus of fantasy literature shows – to imagine all sorts of things and put them in words. Something that will actually work in our world – and not Middle Earth – is more difficult.

    To be fair, feudalism is probably better than anarcho-syndicalism

    Now, given there are 10 different opinions for every 9 libertarians, I assume few will agree to what exactly constitutes pragmatism in ideology. But, as many of our little talks around this place are in agreement, let’s get controversial.

    The main issue is: to what point can you bend a principle in service of being pragmatic, before it ceases to be a principle? Some would say not at all, slippery slope and such. Others would try to define some minimal leeway in it. Another way of viewing things is: can we design the principles to be pragmatic? My island experiment post was an attempt to start from some basic premise and define some principles, while keeping an eye on reality.

    So let us dive in the deep end… I see two types of political discussion. One idealistic, how we would like things to be in perfect universe (cough anarchism) and another what is a good enough ideology for the world we live in – presently, not 500 years from now or in some post scarcity utopia and/or dystopia. My answer is along the lines of minarchism plus, a form of limited government, free(ish) markets and personal liberty, enabling for each a life as close to what they want as can be.

    Now, I am all for talking anarchism for the sake of an interesting debate, but after a point, we need to get back on Earth Earth and see what has a chance in hell of working. What is not impossible, but merely highly improbable? Anarchy? Yeah… no. Minarchy? Probably not true minarchy. Reasonably limited government? Well that is a very long shot maybe.  Which, in the end, we might never live to see, but I am saying there is a chance.

    To clarify, by working, I mean something that allows the individual to live and thrive. Feudalism was stable for many years, but I would not say it worked. Certainly not for the serf. One out of 100 people in a harem may think it is working.  Somewhat anarchic Zomia worked a while, only if working means hunting, gathering, swidden agriculture and almost no capital accumulation.

    While this may or may not be possible, I am trying, against the modern trend, to find principles as objective as possible, otherwise it becomes a quagmire of subjectivism and feels. So I am trying to think of some basic guideline of organizing a political entity. This is not necessarily fully libertarian, but something that maybe can appeal to a slightly broader demographic.

    We can dismiss out of hand ideas that would work if humans were different. Humans have a certain nature, respond to incentives and are not some sort of altruistic angels. Teach murderers not to murder is not a viable idea, certainly not pragmatic in any sense of the word. Due to the problems associated with putting humans and power in the same room, I will say outright that no ideology without some clear limits on state power can function.

    As I believe that, quite objectively, humans are unique individuals, I believe any system needs to focus on individual human rights, not collective ones. A system must not sacrifice individuals – which are obviously a real entity, you can touch them if you want, as long as the sign the consent form – for the sage of a vaguely defined society – which may have a function as an abstract concept but does not really exist. Neither tyranny of minority or majority must rule.

    A functioning country must have some level of stability. A revolution every two years is not sustainable. At the same time there must be a way to change whatever “leaders” there are. Whoever is in a position to wield tools of coercion – police, justice, taxation, regulation, whatever – needs to be held accountable and have some skin in the game. History shows that when leaders can act with impunity, nothing good happens.

    So is socialism right out? Socialism was always right out. I never got the whole socialism would work if humans were better. If humans were better, it would still not work and anyway there would be no need of it. There is no situation where socialism is needed or desired. We can dismiss democratic socialism. It is lipstick on a pig, trying to add the veneer of legitimacy by the democratic part.

    Any form of dictatorship or monarchy should be excluded – this can rarely exist with accountability. A monarchy can be ceremonial at best. Any form of democracy must not lead to mob rule and must be restricted by the fundamental rights of the individual, as history can show us how people were often mistreated by bad laws that had the support of the majority. Excessive centralization is not desirable. This reduces accountability and skin in the game. It concentrates power and it makes corruption easier. It makes the coercive institutions distant for the individual.

    Economically, for better or worse, say what you will of the tenets of small government decentralized republics, it worked some. Yes, there was graft and government imposed monopoly and protectionism, but keeping government somewhat limited meant these could not mess things up to much. And when the state grew too much, there were always problems, even in the Swedish paradise.

    Socially, the main problems were brought by putting the so called collective over the individual. There are no clear models in history for ways of organizing that did not do this. Monarchies, republics, dictatorships, theocracies, capitalism, socialism they all wronged people. The solution is simply extending laissez faire economics of small government to the non-economic issues. I do not believe in social and economic division of freedom. They are either both or neither.

    Now what are my principles? Well I believe rights are individual and that peoplekind [hupersons?]  are social beasts. As such, living together, various conflicts appear. The core role of government is solving or mediating these conflicts in a fashion which best preserves said rights. There is an individual sphere – what is inside is none of societies damn business – and a common sphere – which is basically interaction of individuals, and the main issue with many forms of government is bringing into the common things that are individual. To take a small example, there can be a case for common involvement in health when it comes to contagious diseases e.g. quarantines, but not when it comes to broken legs.

    Believing in non-anarchy, I believe there is some taxation needed and this, in my view, is where I bend the principle some libertarians hold of taxation is theft / extortion / whatever. So to get to the actual point, basically the single land tax is a good idea, is where I am getting at.

    Anyway I think this topic can go on and on and as such I want to take it to the comments section… So how do you like your principles, fellow glibs? Medium rare or blue? Not cooked at all? Discuss …

  • The Hyperbole’s How-to Handbook Chapter One : Pizza Sauce

    [et_pb_section bb_built=”1″][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Intro Text” _builder_version=”3.13.1″]

     
     

    The Hyperbole’s How-to Handbook Chapter One: Pizza Sauce

    Is Libertarianism inherently self-reliant? Is Self-reliance inherently Libertarian? To many Glibs the answer to these questions may seem self-evident, obvious, redundant, repetitive even. We are, after all, a hardy lot of DIYers, homebrewers, self-defenders, sausage makers, board-gamers, reloaders, backyard mechanics, at least one diorama-ist, and cranky old get-off-my-lawners. Rugged Individualism, In the original Herbert Hover sense, is the antithesis of governmental paternalism. What could be more Libertarian? However there is another side to self-reliance and libertarianism, most libertarians hold capitalism and a free market in high regard. Comparative advantage, Division of labor, and Economies of scale are prized concepts. Certainly, it is great fun to shame grown men who can’t change a flat tire but is he any less a libertarian because he relies on his cell phone service and the roadside assistance supplied by personally purchased insurance. You may be thinking “okay Hyp, maybe libertarianism doesn’t require strict self-reliance, but self-reliant people are going to lean towards libertarian, its a common characteristic” Possibly, but it’s not that hard to imagine an off-the-grid, self-composting-toilet-using, chicken-raising, self-sustaining hippie-type that would be more than happy to have the government force the rest of us to live by their rules in a misguided attempt to save the planet, some endangered timberdoodle, or what not. Self Reliance while noble and to a point worth encouraging is not inherently libertarian and vice-versa. So take heart whether you Angus MacGuyver your pizza sauce from homegrown maters squeezed through the casing of a Bic pen and simmered over a solar oven made of used tin foil and roach clips, or, like Al Czervik in the Brushwood pro shop, (or should that be Thorton Melon at the Grand Lakes University bookstore) you use your vast wealth to buy the finest of the 23 types of pizza sauce that no one needs for yourself and all your friends, you can still hold your libertarian head high. As for me, when I can, this is how I’m gonna do it.

    [/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”3.13.1″ text_orientation=”center”]

    The Hyperbole’s Unaliterated Pizza Sauce

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_text admin_label=”steps 1-4 image” _builder_version=”3.13.1″]

    Steps 1 – 4

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Steps 1-4 Text” _builder_version=”3.13.1″]

     
     
    Step 1. Plant and harvest 4-5 lbs of San Marzano Tomatoes and 4 or 5 large chile peppers of the ‘not melt your face’ variety. (For more info on growing said fruits see Chapter Four: Gardening) Rinse and slice tomatoes lengthwise, check for nasty stuff, these were pristine.

    Step 2. Heat over low heat, stirring for about 10 minutes, or until the skins start to loosen up.

    Step 3. Run tomatoes through the food mill that you use once a year, use a medium-sized sieve.

    Step 4. (not shown) You’ve got enough to clean up already so put your milled tomato sauce in the fridge, wash up then walk down to the bar and grill for a mushroom bacon swiss burger, a few Strohs, and to ineffectually and awkwardly chat up the waitresses.

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_divider _builder_version=”3.13.1″ color=”#ffffff” height=”2px” /][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Steps 5-8 Text” _builder_version=”3.13.1″]

     
     
    Step 5. The next evening get your shit together, tomato sauce, onions, mushrooms, garlic, peppers, red wine, and chicken thighs some sausage and some chunks of pork.

    Step 6. Brown meats in oil in your heavy duty stock pot.

    Step 7. Slice up about this many onions, mushrooms, and peppers.

    Step 8. Mince up this much garlic.

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Steps 5-8 image” _builder_version=”3.13.1″]

    Steps 5 – ?

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_divider _builder_version=”3.13.1″ color=”#ffffff” height=”6px” /][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_text admin_label=”steps 9-13 image” _builder_version=”3.13.1″]

    Steps 9 – ?

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Steps 9-13 Text” _builder_version=”3.13.1″]

     
     
    Step 9. Remove your meat. add Onions and Mushrooms (add more oil if needed)

    Step 10. When onions and mushrooms are soft, stir in garlic

    Step 11. Before garlic burns add enough wine to deglaze the pot, return your meats.

    Step 12. Add tomato sauce and peppers, simmer til meats are done or longer, just don’t let the chicken get to falling apart stage.

    Step 13. Make some pasta.

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_divider _builder_version=”3.13.1″ color=”#ffffff” height=”6px” /][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Steps 14-18 Text” _builder_version=”3.13.1″]

     
     
    Step 14. Remove your meats again.

    Step 15. Reserve sauce

    Step 16. Serve up meats and some sauce on pasta with grated parmesan. Eat with bread used to ‘clean’ pot.

    Step 17. Stick your stick blender in the sauce and stick blend it to pizza sauce like consistency.

    Step 18. Divide sauce into ~6oz. portions and freeze what you’re not going to use right away.

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Steps 14-18 image” _builder_version=”3.13.1″]

    Steps 14 – ?

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text admin_label=”time/yield” _builder_version=”3.13.1″]

    Time: 3 months 2 days and 45 mins give or take.

    Difficulty: Meh

    Yield: 1 Mushroom swiss burger, 2-4 servings of cacciatore, 48-60oz. pizza sauce.

    [/et_pb_text][et_pb_text admin_label=”voila” _builder_version=”3.13.1″ text_orientation=”center”]

    Et voilà!

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

  • Philosophy of Food

    I’m an animal lover.  I have two very spoiled dogs and a long history of pet ownership ranging from reptiles, rodents, cats and farm animals.  In high school I was a member of Future Farmers of America and showed poultry at the state fairs.  My parents owned a hobby farm populated with cows, goats, pigs, geese, ducks, chickens and one very fat turkey hen named Tiger.  I was showing Tiger at a fair and stopped for dinner at a sub shop.  I got a turkey sandwich.  As I ate my turkey sandwich looking at the turkey I had raised from an egg and had trained to follow me around, I heard a little voice say, “Isn’t that a little cruel to eat in front of your pet?”  Being 17 or 18 at the time, I wasn’t exactly a deep thinker and excused the thought due to the fact that I had no relationship with the turkey on my sandwich.

    The animals my family raised were never eaten by us.  Sure, we sold them knowing they would be butchered, but our hands were clean.  But as I grew older and started reflecting more on life, often while eating, I thought of the cows that I’d named and sold to market.  I could never have killed one of them.  I don’t think I could enjoy eating them even if someone else had butchered them, but here I am eating a hamburger.  I’d outsourced my killing. Did that make me morally superior or inferior?  I would never pay someone to do something I wasn’t willing to do myself, so how could I outsource my dirty work.  I decided around 27 years old to stop eating beef because of the time I’d spent close to cows, learning how curious and gentle they can be, each with their own unique personality.  Later I questioned what made cows special, other than the fact that I like them.  We had a pot belly pig that liked a good scratch and treat.  It is widely acknowledged pigs are intelligent animals, so pork fell off the menu.

    The little voice said: “Why only beef and pork?  Isn’t that an arbitrary line drawn by nothing but your feelings?”

    My hypocrisy was glaring and I decided I would eat no mammals.  An arbitrary line to be sure, but we are mammals ourselves and that seemed fair at the time.  So another year goes by eating fish, poultry and the occasional reptile when I thought back to Tiger the turkey and remembered eating that sandwich and the little voice reminding me that I wouldn’t have killed any turkey.  Well, I enjoy fishing and have no shellfish allergies so pescatarianism here I come.  Finally I could honestly say that although I was hiring someone else to catch and provide my food, I would be willing to do it myself.  I remained on that diet for several years and continued enjoying animals through zoos, aquariums, nature walks and television programs.  I love nature shows.  I find any animal fascinating.  The way they live, breed and hunt. Watching lions hunt on tv as a child I always rooted for the gazelle to get away.  As I got older I realized that the lion needs to eat too.

    Little Voice: “Is the lion an immoral creature because it hunts?”

    Only the most rabid PETA person would say yes.  So if the lion is not immoral for hunting, why did I myself consider it immoral?  Because I have agency?  I can choose not to kill.  I have empathy.  I can image what other people and animals feel.

    Little Voice: “What about the bass you love to catch?”

    That, I told myself was different; they aren’t a higher animal.

    Little Voice: “They fight for their lives.  They want to live.”

    Fine, fish off the menu.

    Little Voice: “What about shellfish?  They didn’t evolve those hard defensive shells for no reason.”

    Fine, all animals off the menu.  Are you happy now voice in my head?!?  I’ll go vegetarian!

    Little Voice: “Cows are slaves to dairy farmers.”

    Fine, vegan!  Good enough for you conscience?!?

    Once again,  I was watching a nature program, this time about wild tobacco plants.  Tobacco plants produce natural pesticides to protect themselves from insects and when exposed to a new pest that is resistant to their chemical warfare, they evolve a new pesticides in a never ending evolution of defense.  Not only do tobacco plants fight to live, they send a message to other tobacco plants with the design for the new pesticide.  The plants have empathy, they shared their hard work so the species could survive.

    Little Voice: “Seems like plants want to live as much as bass.”

    Fruit?  How about that brain? You got anything against fruit?  I’ll go full Jainism!  Not to offend any Jainist reading, but if you look into evolutionary history, that fruit isn’t meant for humans.  The reason that ripe fruit changes color is to signal birds that it is ready for them, not some local primate.  Prior to color vision development in primates, only birds could see the color change and the plants were offering a tasty snack to the birds in exchange for spreading seeds far and wide.  If a monkey ate the fruit, the distribution would be limited, so plants, specifically peppers, developed capsaicin in an effort to discourage mammals from eating their precious seeds.  Birds, fish and reptiles don’t have capsaicin receptors.  This was a limited chemical attack aimed at mammals, including us.

    Little Voice: “So animals don’t want us to eat them and plants don’t want us to eat them, what are you going to eat smart guy?”

    I thought about it.  Single cell organisms that use photosynthesis and have no defensive mechanism?  They aren’t even harmless!  I’m sure, little voice in my head you are familiar with the great oxygen event.  You must, you know what I know! Those little light consuming bastards wiped all other life off the planet with poisonous oxygen!  As I gained control of my addled mind, I began to think about how a small organism changed an entire planet and took my attention from the very small to the very large; our universe.

    The universe is big place and the vast majority is empty and yet filled with danger; vacuums, extreme cold, radiation, black holes and burning balls of gas.  The universe is racing to reach it lowest form of energy through constant expansion and organisms are fighting the flow of energy seeking its lowest state as the heat death of the universe approaches. Microbes to man are engaged in a Sisyphean challenge of rolling a rock up an energy hill, forever.  In that context, living is fighting. It is the ultimate fight club with no holds barred.  Our ancestors came down from the trees and developed efficient locomotion to pursue game; a unique shoulder design that allows for projectile weapons such as slings and arrows.  We learned to use fire to make meat more digestible and with that calorie boost our brains grew to develop even more complex hunting schemes and weapons.

    Little Voice:  “Does that mean YOU can do whatever you please with no consideration for life?”

    No.  Humans are still cursed/gifted with sentience.  We are not bound strictly by evolution.  We can make choices about what and how we eat.

    Little Voice: “Are animals nothing more than property?”

    That is a debatable question for another post, but let us assume yes, animals are property AND in need of special consideration.  Just because animals are a food source doesn’t mean we can’t still show empathy.  With these revelations my diet expanded to include animals once again, but with a wider consciousness.  I thought, what is the most ethical way to procure food?  A shallow thinker may conclude a vegan diet hurts no animals.  I already posited that plants may not want to be food, but conceding that point, growing vegetables isn’t harmless.   The land where soybeans and kale are grown had to be cleared and the native animals displaced.  After the animals and non-commercial plants are eradicated, the land needs constant protections from animals trying to eat the crops and plants invading the inviting soil.  A clear battle line is marked at the edge of the farm and pesticides must be applied which kill not only pest but other harmless insects.

    The veggie farm is just another arena in the fight club of life.  Cattle ranches and poultry farms have the same issues but with added ethical considerations of living conditions for the animals.  Buying cage free and free range is an option but still the animals aren’t wild and the land still managed.  Commercial fishing has it own set of issues such as long net vessels catch the target fish for market, but also thousands of fish with no food value.

    Little Voice: “There ought to be a law!”

    There oughtn’t, I counter.  Everything comes with a price, including ethical farming, fishing and ranching.  I choose to pay extra for what I consider to be the more ethical methods, but not everyone has room in the budget to make those same choices or has the same set of values as I do.

    Little Voice: “Clearly hunting is the most cruel.  Everyone knows that.”

    Not so fast my imaginary friend.  Recreational hunting is limited to only certain times of the year and subject to bag limits for native animals; on private land you can target invasive species year round.  In both cases, the land is left in a natural state so all non-game animals and plants can live without molestation.  Only a few of the game species are harvested so the majority is left to thrive and the sacrificed few aren’t wasted by responsible hunters, since the meat is eaten and the hides turned into trophies. Sport fishing is the cousin of hunting, where limits are set and only a sustainable number of animals taken during certain seasons.  Hunting and fishing are the most honest ways to procure meat in my opinion.  The hunted have a chance for escape and ethical hunters give fair chase to the animal.  The cow has no chance for life beyond the ranch and may even see the rancher as a friend who provides food, until led to the abattoir.

    After years of self reflection and deep though, I have made peace with the little voice in my head.  I try to eat sustainable fish, free range/cruelty free animals and this year I plan to buy a lifetime hunting/fishing license for the state of Florida, so I can supplement my diet with what I consider the most ethical meat source.  I would grow my own vegetables too, but it turns out I don’t have much of a green thumb or patience for weeding.  How is any of this of interest to libertarians?  Libertarianism is a governing philosophy, not a moral code.  Where the debate comes into play is how government regulates use of public lands for hunting, seas for fishing, animal cruelty laws for ranching and regulation of herbicides/pesticides/GMO for farming.

    As libertarians, we can debate how heavy the regulatory hand should be.  No FDA?  I’m listening.  No FWC?  I think they provide a valuable service of ensuring native species aren’t over hunted on public lands.  A better solution would be selling public lands to private conservation groups and have private regulation.  Mandate cruelty free food?  This is where my standards for myself and the law come into conflict.  I chose a diet that I believe to be ethical, but as a libertarian I would never force others to make that same choice.  If enough people would choose to pay the price difference the market will provide cruelty free alternatives.  As the market grows, prices should come down.  In the end, it is up to each individual to make peace with that little voice in their head.

  • Influences & Formative Experience. A journey to Libertarianism

    Being a libertarian can be tough.  As our logo (I think of it as ours.  The founders may be first among equals, but its the participation of the Glibertariat that makes this place amazing.) alludes to some of the misconceptions people have about libertarianism. The public discourse and the education complex don’t discuss the ideas that underlie the philosophy.  So how do people arrive at it?  I like hearing other people’s stories so I thought I’d share mine.

    I grew up a poor black boy in…wait, no, I know the difference between shit and Shinola so that’s another guy.  I did grow up in a rural area of N. Carolina and went to a Southern Baptist church.  I suppose that had an impact on me.  I started out a kid with not much appetite for authority, tons of questions about why, and intolerance for bullshit.

    My favorite show was the Dukes of Hazzard.  I think that had a big impact on me.  I don’t know of any other show on TV that was so anti-authoritarian and so subversive while appearing to be nothing more than country kitsch.  The authorities were corrupt, venal, petty and incompetent.  Which almost made it a documentary.  The Duke family were loving, fun, and had cool cars.  And they never meant anyone any harm, even the corrupt government trying to destroy them.  I didn’t realize for decades how formative that show was, but it set the stage later.

    I grew older and more obstinate.  The more I learned, the more questions I asked about why.  And the more I realized that most of the authority figures in life didn’t know their ass from a hole in the ground, and either way couldn’t find it with both hands and a map. And with that realization, the more I began to question why they should be able to tell me what to do simply because they had managed to remain breathing. From there to questioning others in authority like politicians and cops wasn’t a huge leap and fortunately, around the time I was 11 I had an experience that helped me make the jump.

    In the 5th grade the sad, pathetic nature of bureaucracy became crystal clear to me.  We had an assistant principal that all the kids and parents adored.  She truly was great with us kids; a good balance of discipline and love.  When the principal announced his retirement due to health reasons a temporary principal was put in place while the school board decided on a permanent replacement. Full of nonsense about our form of government and a naive belief in the right of the people impacted to petition the government for redress I started a petition.  I sent it around to kids and parents, asking for signatures supporting Mrs. Sandy (the asst. principal) for the principal position. The temp principal who had worked for the system longer and wanted it because of that, despite having spent years trying for a principal position without success, was not pleased.  She went so far as to call me into her office for a dressing down and to demand I hand over my ‘stupid little petition’.  This did not go well for her when I told my parents about our little meeting and her threats to suspend me if I didn’t comply.

    My mom was something of a mama bear; if I was in the right she’d go to the mattresses for me.  But woe betide my ass if I didn’t behave well.  And the words, “This is bad enough your dad will handle it” struck a kind of liquid terror in my bowels on the few occasions I heard it.  Dad was usually the less strict, so if he had to do the disciplining I knew I had seriously fucked up.  Anyway, they both had my back and went up to the principal’s office the next morning and had a little come to Jesus meeting with the harridan.  I am still not privy to the exact conversation, but she steered clear of me from then on out.

    It was at the next school board meeting where I had that lesson about petty bureaucrats reinforced even harder and cemented my hatred of those pathetic types.  The hiring of a permanent principal was on the list, I showed up with my petition and duly handed it in to the board.  I was interviewed by the local newspaper for a front page story.  And thus the lessons.

    First, despite the petition having about 70% of the parents and students at the school signing on, Mrs. Sandy was passed over for the bitchy-bitch.  The board accepted the petition, but they didn’t even look it over or read it.  I mean, after all, what do the peasants and their children know about education?

    Second, the news reporter got my quote wrong in the front page article the next day.  They quoted an 11 year old wrong, changing the meaning of my words.  I mean, this adult had one fucking job in a small town newspaper and they couldn’t even accurately write down what I said.  That also made me pretty furious and long before the The Orange Cheeto turned the phrase around on them, cemented the idea of Fake News in my head and further stoked the fires of my skepticism.

    By the time I hit college I’d had seven more years to shape my philosophy of politics and negative experiences of people in power.  I labeled myself a conservative.  But my religious indoctrination had also created a disgust with hypocrisy and a desire for clear, moral consistency so I often found myself at odds with certain conservative opinions. I’d also started reading Heinlein.

    It is a little hard to articulate how big of an impact Heinlein’s novels had on me in regard to political thought.  While it was never stated outright in that fashion, the NAP was there in his work,  presented questions of moral agency, letting others live their lives as they see fit so long as they don’t offer your violence.  (And the idea of non-monogamy, but that is a different post).  It gave me a springboard to start looking for other works to help my burgeoning interest in a political ideology based on liberty and personal autonomy.

    The final piece was a principled lefty prof, my adviser. In an age of ‘speech is violence’, no platforming, and all the rest of the Ctrl Left totalitarianism, it sounds odd that a lefty prof might recommend such kulaks and wreckers as HL Mencken, Rothbard, Milton Friedman, FA Hayek, and the like to a student discovering his politics seems unimaginable.  But it happened.  Because Mr. Collins was a liberal, but he was also a man who felt he had a duty to his students, and who took the goal of educating his students into thinking for themselves quite seriously.

    I can’t claim I was completely reasoned into my thoughts on politics and libertarianism, but those are some of the sources that helped shape my thinking as I grew up.  That’s how a corny country show from the ’80s, a petty bureaucrat, an incompetent reporter, a science fiction author, and a lefty professor helped me to develop my politics and outlook on life.

    What’s your story?

  • Libertarianism basics: a classic thought experiment

    No man is an island, entire of itself…any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. – Decebalus, king of Dacia

    But Pie! Thought experiments are dumb! you will say… Well possibly, but they can be vaguely useful and I was always particularly fond of this one, as it was somewhat foundational for my views back in the day. So this is about The Desert Island. It is my attempt to see if this though experiment is or can be made useful as a tool to talk to non-libertarians about certain fundamentals. I will give my own interpretation, open to corrections, addenda  and whatnot.

    The thought experiment I would say is one on individual rights. Humans, after birth, sign a contract and get to live in a society of sorts. Due to all these messy social interactions, it is sometimes hard to see the border between individual and group – everyone who has been in a 6+ people orgy knows this. The point of this experiment is to simply isolate an individual from the rest and analyze.

    So the way this goes, let’s say someone lives alone on an island. In this case there are no constraints on behavior outside of nature –gravity still gravitates. If you build that, you got it, if not, you don’t. If you brought with you your book and record (mixed tape whatever), and no one takes them they are yours to keep. Otherwise do without. Of course, as you don’t have electricity you cannot listen to the music anyway, but if you could, it could be real loud, no one would complain. You can yell obscenities or vocally support Trump – freedom of speech would be quite absolute-, worship whatever interesting rock you see on the island or  the local volcano or lightning or some weird notion of an transcendent god.

    Basically live as you choose in the limits of you possibilities and possessions, as long as no other human acts against you. Life, liberty and the pursuit of coconuts one might say. In this scenario there are no obligations to others, nor from others to you. No right to things not produced, by the simple fact that there are none available, but absolute right to those you have or make.

    Such a human is free from aggression, as there is no one to initiate it. The only issue may be if his island is truly his – that is if he paid the required single land tax. So I consider these a sort of tire 1 rights, purely individual.

    Off course, if any of us were in this situation,  sometimes we would feel we’re gonna break down and cry, nowhere to go, nothing to do with our time … lonely, so lonely, living on our own. Anyway… In the end coconut oil only gets you so far. So people seek other people. And this is where the average no libertarian will tell you the experiment is useless and there is no point to it, not even making loneliness and lubricant jokes. But I disagree, I fell it helps to see the lone individual in itself. So let us say each human is an island – metaphorically speaking off course.

    Let’s say there are other islands all around – with other people. And you can meet them, shoot the shit, trade some, talk, you can even show them your coconuts. Off course, they may be selfish bastards and not want to do all hose things with you. And here is where the philosophy part kicks in. The essence of libertarianism is that those tire 1 rights – the ones the humans have in themselves, as individuals, absent all others – should be preserved in the presence of other people, society if you will. Furthermore these should form the basis of social organization, as unobstructed as possible. The other philosophies of the world beg to differ.

    Humans under a certain level of wealth do not live each alone on his island, there simply are not enough islands to go around. So I am going to switch metaphors in the middle of the text … hmmm… people are boats, that works. And boats on the water can run into each other. Some at this point would tell libertarians absolute freedom liberty cannot exist. As if libertarians do not know this… It is implied liberty for all that you cannot be at liberty to infringe upon others’, as my liberty to swing my oar ends at the tip of your boat. So societies create various rules in order to solve or prevent conflict – either codified into legislation or as unwritten rules of society – manners and morality. The purpose of these rules is in much debate by various ideologies. From a libertarian standpoint, the goal is to preserve liberty as much as possible and to minimize infringement of individual rights – defined as rights of individual absent the group.

    Life liberty and the pursuit of coconuts

    On various levels the conflict is true of a society as a whole, as it is of people living together in the same home or friends going together to a restaurant. You can no longer do anything you want, you have to take into account others and compromise, even if you may end up in a place serving Hawaiian deep dish. Although, to be sure, all people have some limits to the amount of freedom they are willing to give up. So most ideologies at least vaguely pretend to care about some level of individual rights and liberty, because it does not sound good not to. Off course they mostly lack any clear definition of these rights, which end up being whatever someone likes at a given time.

    Which aspects of life are the business of the individual alone, which of the group or family, which of society, and which of government institutions if such institutions exist is the main question of politics. Or, in other words, where the line is drawn – over this line government and/or others do not cross, do not interfere. And this is where such a thought experiment can be useful, although not sufficient.

    So this thought experiment got us nowhere in the end, beyond presenting the idea that a human can be seen as a thing in itself, outside society. Isn’t this just preaching to the choir round these parts? Well, maybe, but still. A blog needs posts, does it not? So I dunno, comment or don’t, as is your right

     

     

  • Liberty-Leaning Candidates?

    [et_pb_section bb_built=”1″][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Carlin quote” _builder_version=”3.10.1″]

    [/et_pb_text][et_pb_divider _builder_version=”3.10.1″ color=”#ffffff” height=”14px” /][et_pb_text admin_label=”Intro” _builder_version=”3.10.1″]

    Nobody is as cynical as someone who has seen the legislative process from the inside in a corrupt place like Albany. I am that someone.

    Nevertheless, I sometimes find myself being forgetful and letting a tiny glimmer of hope into my heart.

    There are actually a few folks running for office this time around who don’t make me immediately despair. I have plenty of time to be disappointed in them later on.

    [/et_pb_text][et_pb_divider _builder_version=”3.10.1″ color=”#ffffff” height=”8px” /][et_pb_divider _builder_version=”3.10.1″ divider_style=”dotted” height=”10px” divider_weight=”3″ /][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Amash” _builder_version=”3.10.1″]

    Rep. Justin Amash, Republican incumbent from the 3rd District in Michigan.

    I like Justin Amash. He says reasonable things, and many, or perhaps even most, of his votes on bills are the way I would vote, too, if presented with the same dreck. Amash has one of the best records of doing the most basic part of his job: he shows up to vote. Then, he explains his votes and posts those explanations on various widely-available platforms.

    Amash’s seat seems pretty secure. The last time a Democrat was elected as Representative for his district was in 1974, and was soundly defeated 2 short years later.

    Campaign Site | Twitter

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Sharpe” _builder_version=”3.10.1″]

    Larry Sharpe is running for governor of my native state (NY) as a Libertarian.

    Sharpe has pleased me with his positions on many issues I find important: the NYS SAFE Act; public education; business development/corporate taxes; fathers’ rights; drugs; occupational licensing(!); victimless crimes.

    Significant to this Upstater: Sharpe doesn’t think the state ends in Larchmont. Sharpe and/or his running mate, Andrew Hollister, have been actively campaigning across the entire state, making appearances at veterans’ groups BBQs, libraries, tiny county fairs, farmer’s markets, vape shops, and coffee houses.

    Andrew Cuomo and friends have been a disaster for an already besieged state. Larry Sharpe is really the only viable alternative that I have ever seen to the same old corruption in New York.

    Twitter

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_divider _builder_version=”3.10.1″ color=”#ffffff” height=”12px” /][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Petersen” _builder_version=”3.10.1″]

    And then there is Austin Petersen, who is running as a Republican for the Senate seat currently held by the completely unprincipled and not-too-bright Democrat Claire McCaskill.

    I’ve only recently begun paying much attention to Petersen, which I’m thinking might have been an oversight. There are some issues on which we don’t agree, but he is massively better than the incumbent or the presumptive Republican candidate, Missouri Attorney General Josh Hawley.

    It’s a crowded field, with eleven people competing in next Tuesday’s primary for the chance to unseat McCaskill.

    Petersen has a background in media production and it shows in his use of social media. His Ghost Gunner II Giveaway is a brilliant combination of reaching out to pro Second Amendment voters and trolling the gun grabbers, garnering publicity on both sides of the issue.

    Best of luck to him next week. Regardless of the outcome, I predict we’ll be hearing from Petersen for a long time to come.

    Twitter

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_2″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Massie” _builder_version=”3.10.1″]

    Rep. Thomas Massie, Republican incumbent from the 4th District in Kentucky.

    There are many issues on which I do not see eye-to-eye with Thomas Massie. However, he has been on the right side of the Second Amendment abuses which have been going on forever and are ratcheting up every day. And that goes a long way with me.

    Just a side note: The Kentucky list of candidates is pretty amusing. Take a look at occupations.

    Campaign Site | Twitter

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][et_pb_row][et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_divider _builder_version=”3.10.1″ color=”#ffffff” height=”12px” /][et_pb_text admin_label=”Illinois Races” _builder_version=”3.10.1″]

    Illinois Races

    Unfortunately, our horrible Republican governor is likely to be replaced by an even more horrible Democratic governor. I hate them both, so lets focus on the fact that at least there are a number of candidates for all the state-wide offices from several other political parties!

    The Libertarian candidates for governor and attorney general have particularly amusing names.

    I almost want to like gubernatorial hopeful “Kash” Jackson simply for the truth-in-advertising nature of the nickname of an Illinois political candidate.

    And for attorney general, just a good ol’ boy from Southern IL: Bubba Harsy.

    Really, none of the Libertarian candidates have any chance whatsoever. But it heartens me that at least they are now on the ballots.

    [/et_pb_text][et_pb_divider _builder_version=”3.10.1″ color=”#ffffff” height=”12px” /][et_pb_text admin_label=”Closing” _builder_version=”3.10.1″]

    Please, jump into the comments and let us know who else is out there this year about whom we can feel even marginally OK.

    [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]