ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

Mailvox: how SJWs metastasize

An individual familiar with the con scene explains how SJW entryism metastasizes once they take control of an organization and start using it as a vehicle to spread their thought control elsewhere.
Greetings from Minnesota. I recently read SJWs Always Lie, and I noted in particular the parts about entryism and the way Codes of Conduct are weaponized to cull enemies from organizations because it parallels my own experience with the local fan con scene.

The big fan con, locally, remains CONvergence ("CVG"). Damn near all of the other local fan cons follow its lead and participate in an association with the defacto parent org, the Geek Partnership Society. When this organizational realignment occurred there also came the inclusion of the current Code of Conduct (masked as a simple "Harassment" statement), pushes for Costumes Are Not Consent as another fork in the process, and the inclusion of the Atheism Plus crowd via con-within-a-con Skepticon (Rebecca Watson, Amanda Marcotte, and P.Z. Myers are much loved by the ruling clique here.) as a recurring element. I wondered what the hell was going on.

Well, one of the former CVG con com members is a man by the name of Michael Lee who has recently organized a convention specific to organizers of fan con: JOFCon MSP. This con has an explicit Code of Conduct, and I note that this code makes explicit in writing what is in actual practice at CONvergence regarding how its harassment policy is intended to work.

Furthermore, this is a con catering to the "Secret Masters of Fandom" clique, and many of the current and former CVG con-com members who will attend JOFCon MSP adhere to the SMOFs in large part due to the Torlock crowd being long-time regulars at CVG . The Former Guests of Honor, Visiting Authors, and Attending Professions are listed and I'm sure you'd recognize many of those listed. Yes, this meant any "acceptable" talk of Sad Puppies or Gamergate was NOT in support.

I offer my above-linked examples as real-world cases worthy of study, as both CVG (in its current status as Local Con of Cons, and therefore a significant point in the con-centric travelling circus that many authors and artists run to earn their living) and this JOFCon seem to possess more influence than they seem. WorldCon is not the only example of SJWs using leverage to fuck up the greater culture; I suspect that they're using the entire con scene to engineer their poison into the culture.

I'm telling others sympathetic to the anti-SJW push across all fandoms that attend conventions to check their materials for similar signs of entryism and reconsider the state of organizational integrity for that convention. I would advise professionals to do likewise for conferences related to their interests. Given the alternatives now available, it may be possible to render those too far gone totally irrelevant while others can be reconquered and then purged of the cultists.
Keep this in mind if you are feeling any qualms of conscience about jettisoning an SJW from your club or organization because "he hasn't done anything yet". Don't look at them as individuals because they don't operate as individuals and they certainly don't think for themselves; they are merely an invasive tendril of the SJW hive mind that is attempting to force its way into your area of responsibility.

If you don't force them out, if you don't keep them out, they will eventually take you out and take it over. Don't think you, your organization, or your purpose is too valuable or important, the Narrative ALWAYS comes first and foremost for SJWs.

And if the SJWs are already running the show, leave. Stop supporting it. If you can summon the manpower to take it back, then do so, but if you can't, set up your own show in direct competition with it and run them out that way.

Labels: ,

153 Comments:

Blogger Durandel Almiras September 23, 2015 8:11 AM  

I'd be a regular attendee of a PuppyCon, IlkCon, or VFMCon. I just ask that booth babes and attention whores would be permitted to wear sexy outfits if only to trigger SJWs on sight...thus it would be a security feature so we can keep them out. Oh, and anyone who demands a Code of Conduct is immediately banned for life

Blogger Durandel Almiras September 23, 2015 8:15 AM  

other worthy new cons could be a GamerGateCon (like a giant annual meetup) and an Anti-PCCon.

Blogger Gaiseric ! September 23, 2015 8:19 AM  

Oh, and anyone who demands a Code of Conduct is immediately banned for life.

There's only one Code of Conduct I could ever get behind. It's basically a simplified version of the Southern US code duello.

Blogger VFM bot #188 September 23, 2015 8:42 AM  

None of what Vox says above can be properly understood and utilized without reading SJWs Always Lie. With that knowledge, one is ready to join the growing ranks of anti-SJW freedom-fighters in the ongoing war.

OpenID techdouchebaggery September 23, 2015 9:00 AM  

The SJW take over process bears a resemblance to O'Sullivan's law that any organization that does not organize itself as non-leftists will drift to the left over time.

The SJW process also resembles the pod people method of attack but that's stating the obvious.

Blogger Robert What? September 23, 2015 9:10 AM  

It is unfortunate the way things have changed. I have been in the tech field for over three decades. The tech fields used to lean libertarian. Even Google, Mozilla and Microsoft started out that way. However, more and more they have become SJW infused Leftist organizations. It also seems to coincide with marked decreases in innovation and creativity. Have others here seen similar changes?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan September 23, 2015 9:14 AM  

A rhetorical jab "In your opinion" comes in handy

Blogger Koanic September 23, 2015 9:20 AM  

"Thus left wing movements start out each quite different from each other, and converge more and more to the left archetype, under the selective pressure for the niche of state mediated propagation of memes, just as all severely aneuploid malignant metastatic cancers look pretty much alike, by convergent evolution, and not much like their various tissues of origin."

http://blog.jim.com/science/leftism-as-cancer-2/

OpenID crash September 23, 2015 9:26 AM  

@6

Very much so.

Libertarian/Transhumanist were very dominant as recently as 10 years ago. It isn't hard to spot. If you take a look at technology news/discussion sites you can see it very plainly. Slashdot is a good example. The site went from overwhelmingly technology news, meritocratic userbase, to left leaning politics, and moderation that punishes disagreement with the narrative.

Blogger Cataline Sergius September 23, 2015 9:34 AM  

Any organization that needs a lot of volunteers is instantly vulnerable to SJW rot.

And the hilarious part is, these are the kind of volunteers who don't do a thing!

Not a single solitary fucking thing. They just wander around aimlessly or if too fat for that strenuous activity, sit.

But they will happily volunteer for everything.

Why? Why do they volunteer and then just squat like toads?

Blogger Nate September 23, 2015 9:42 AM  

@8

Preach.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer September 23, 2015 9:47 AM  

"Slashdot is a good example. The site went from overwhelmingly technology news, meritocratic userbase, to left leaning politics, and moderation that punishes disagreement with the narrative."

I stopped reading Slashdot years ago because of that. Verily, there was no subject where discussion did not turn to the perfidy of conservatives.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan September 23, 2015 9:49 AM  

"Cult" is correct and their weakness perhaps a resilient shell but a very vulnerable interior

Blogger Koanic September 23, 2015 9:52 AM  

"Why do they volunteer and then just squat like toads?"

Doing something would imply internal honor. They are village women. Once included, that's enough.

Except, of course, for excluding anyone who possesses a shred of disrupting honor.

Blogger GreenEyedJinn September 23, 2015 10:04 AM  

I recall reading one of the book reviews for SJWAL, that a reviewer liked the book but was disappointed or some such only with Vox's proposal to 'police our own' to keep SJWs out.
The point of this post and counter to the idea that we shouldn't have to 'police' our own is obvious: anybody who doesn't like what you think is free to disagree and provide concrete rationale for why their point of view is valid. Anybody who disagrees simply because they don't "like" something and demands validation of their point of view without rationale is not fit to be in the group. It's a simple Freedom of Association thing -- we are free to NOT associate with SJWs and are free to act on that principle.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 10:22 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 10:25 AM  

The tech fields used to lean libertarian. Even Google, Mozilla and Microsoft started out that way. However, more and more they have become SJW infused Leftist organizations.

You say that as if Libertarianism were on the Right. As currently instantiated, it's a Leftist movement. Trans-national, anti-ethnic, pro-Gay, etc. Libertarians merely believe we are at the "whithering of the State" stage of Socialism, not the "dictatorship of the Proletariat."

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 10:27 AM  

...O'Sullivan's law that any organization that does not organize itself as non-leftists will drift to the left over time.

I would say that SJWAL is a correction of O'Sullivan's law. Organizations don't merely drift. That implies an impersonal and inevitable order of the universe. These things are done they don't merely happen.

A better way to state the principle would be;
"Any organization that does not explicitly and aggressively keep the SJWs out will eventually be taken over by them."

Blogger VFM bot #188 September 23, 2015 10:33 AM  

The tech fields used to lean libertarian. Even Google, Mozilla and Microsoft started out that way. However, more and more they have become SJW infused Leftist organizations. Slashdot is a good example. The site went from overwhelmingly technology news, meritocratic userbase, to left leaning politics, and moderation that punishes disagreement with the narrative.

Well then, query to all of you: If SJWs Always Lie had been published 30 years ago, would the process described above have played out in the same way? Would have played out at ALL? Hmm?

Blogger Daniel September 23, 2015 10:34 AM  

Why? Why do they volunteer and then just squat like toads?

The fundamental concept behind occupation is to occupy.

Blogger Koanic September 23, 2015 10:43 AM  

"The fundamental concept behind occupation is to occupy."

I don't think so. The cancer doesn't need to be self-aware, and often isn't. They merely seek the high status of in-group inclusion, and then purge those not operating on an equalist-dishonor basis because fear threat.

Blogger David The Good September 23, 2015 10:43 AM  

I used to consider myself a hardcore libertarian but have been disenchanted by the moral cancer.

Blogger Trimegistus September 23, 2015 10:56 AM  

As near as I can tell, Libertarianism in America has been taken over by the anti-Christian side. The only important freedoms to them are weed, gay sex, and atheism. The right of self-defense, economic liberty, and political freedom have been bargained away in exchange for legal weed and the mockery of gay marriage.

Blogger Josh September 23, 2015 11:04 AM  

As near as I can tell, Libertarianism in America has been taken over by the anti-Christian side. The only important freedoms to them are weed, gay sex, and atheism. The right of self-defense, economic liberty, and political freedom have been bargained away in exchange for legal weed and the mockery of gay marriage.

Only at Reason and the Libertarian Party.

Not at the Mises Institute, LRC, and the liberty movement.

Blogger Koanic September 23, 2015 11:10 AM  

Refresher: Sociological Axes:
Honor/dishonor
Hierarchical/equal

Libertarianism:
HH + HEs start. DEs join for status. HEs accept because dishonor not salient. HH normal activities generate DE fear threat. DEs initiate purge, HEs accept because hierarchy more salient than dishonor. Final form is DHs leading DEs.

Slashdot is probably more a case of HEs starting, DEs infiltrating, and eventually DHs providing leadership.

Core problem: HEs lack a social immune system. Hence HH Vox's infinite pains to educate knuckleheaded HE "gammas" and "moderates".

Blogger VFM bot #188 September 23, 2015 11:15 AM  

Agree with David the Good. Libertarians today are almost always anarchist (and loudly hostile toward minarchists), atheist (and loudly hostile toward people of faith), libertine (and loudly hostile toward traditional morality), and in support of special group rights for homosexuals (therefore it's okay to drive Christian bakers, florists, and restaurants out of business). They never speak about the Libertarian right to discrimination and free association (I saw self-proclaimed libertarian Penn Gillette on TV say that if businesses want to refuse service to homosexuals, "maybe they shouldn't be in business"). These days I call myself a libertarian-conservative, and compassionately refer to most libertarians as "idiots"....

Blogger Student in Blue September 23, 2015 11:23 AM  

@19. VFM bot #188
Well then, query to all of you: If SJWs Always Lie had been published 30 years ago, would the process described above have played out in the same way? Would have played out at ALL? Hmm?

Probably not. The reason why reactionary movements are starting and being so successful is that SJWs have gotten cocky and complacent. They thought they won, so they stopped beings subtle - and that's drawn the curtain back and let so many of us see for the first time.

A big reason why SJWs Always Lie is so effective is because it is very, very timely.

Blogger David The Good September 23, 2015 11:29 AM  

@VFM bot #188

Yes. They're often non-breeders and have no investment in what future children will inherit. It's a variant of "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die," rather than generational thinking. I believe in maximum liberty for individuals; however, this can only be achieved when individuals are self-policing. The modern multicultural/multireligious/irreligious state renders this impossible.

Blogger VFM bot #188 September 23, 2015 11:29 AM  

A big reason why SJWs Always Lie is so effective is because it is very, very timely.

What you said, blue guy. The thing that makes SJWAL so timely/important is also driving the extraordinary Trump phenomenon in the political sphere.

Blogger Travis Landenwitsch September 23, 2015 11:33 AM  

Student in Blue

What is your criteria for saying SJWs Always Lie is so effective?

OpenID basementhomebrewer September 23, 2015 11:37 AM  

"Why? Why do they volunteer and then just squat like toads?"

They want to be able to say they were part of the project. They don't have any skills other than bullying people once they are in a place of power. In order to get in power they need to make it look like they were part of many successful projects.

So, they volunteer in the hope that the rest of the team pulls through with a big success. Then they use that fact to pad their resume allowing them to advance in the organization.

Blogger Russell (106) September 23, 2015 11:41 AM  

@12 Ron Winkleheimer

Ditto. I didn't recognize the exact problem at the time, but the site drifted from tech to social BS, and then the social stuff was under PC thought control. I wandered off.

SJW delenda est.

Blogger Student in Blue September 23, 2015 11:51 AM  

@30. Travis Landenwitsch
What is your criteria for saying SJWs Always Lie is so effective?

1) A big chunk of people beyond normal "fans" have bought it and praised it
2) Lessons learned in SJWs Always Lie have already been applied multiple times - people unsure of the lesson wouldn't throw in with it just based on a book
3) The response against it is always a good sign

OpenID artraccoon September 23, 2015 11:53 AM  

SJWs are a Virus...a social disease. Not only are important or big groups susceptible to the SJW virus, but there isn't a group too small or unimportant that will escape their attentions. Fight them on all fronts!!

Blogger Were-Puppy September 23, 2015 12:02 PM  

@6 Robert What?
It is unfortunate the way things have changed. I have been in the tech field for over three decades. The tech fields used to lean libertarian. Even Google, Mozilla and Microsoft started out that way. However, more and more they have become SJW infused Leftist organizations. It also seems to coincide with marked decreases in innovation and creativity. Have others here seen similar changes?
---

Yes. And I always felt the creeping doom was somehow being generated by HR departments. Most people were thinking somehow HR is the enemy. Maybe the HR department is where most of them initially gain entry? SJWAL is a real eye opener for a lot of people who've found they are the frogs in the pot, and the water is nearing boil.

Blogger Groot September 23, 2015 12:08 PM  

@25. Koanic:
That is the spergiest spergie-soaked and then spergie-urinated-on spergle-yak I've heard yet on this site. Why don't you let that drip-dry for a while and then try again in English?

Blogger Koanic September 23, 2015 12:10 PM  

HR department is the immediately visible arm of the regulatory state (which is undergoing leftist singularity). They are the attached party cadres - the commissars.

Blogger Were-Puppy September 23, 2015 12:14 PM  

I also found it strange a couple of times I have seen internal HR purges. Maybe they are not all under the same hive mind, and the outsiders had to be eliminated?

Blogger VD September 23, 2015 12:17 PM  

I always felt the creeping doom was somehow being generated by HR departments. Most people were thinking somehow HR is the enemy. Maybe the HR department is where most of them initially gain entry?

Precisely. You always have to pay particular attention to HR and to anyone with control over internal affairs. SJWs beeline for those positions.

Blogger Allan Davis September 23, 2015 12:19 PM  

Josh #24, thanks, you beat me to it.

-=ad=-

Blogger Allan Davis September 23, 2015 12:25 PM  

To follow on to Josh's comments...I personally think there is an SJW-invasion of libertarian thought going on. The old anarcho-capitalist "hardcore" libertarians, versus a newer, "edgier," more socially-aware libertarianism...which is basically watered down leftist faux libertarianism.

Apologies if this is derailing the thread.

-=ad=-

Blogger Koanic September 23, 2015 12:26 PM  

@36 Sorry let me rephrase:

Fertilizer sunshine water weevil sapbleed heartrot snap compost earthworm. WOODPECKER

Blogger Russell (106) September 23, 2015 12:27 PM  

HR has nothing to measure or compare.

It's no wonder the SJWs are drawn to that, it's like getting paid to drink coffee and surf the web, with the occasional drive to put everyone under some sort of Code of Conduct.

OpenID Jack Amok September 23, 2015 12:40 PM  

I used to consider myself a hardcore libertarian but have been disenchanted by the moral cancer.

Some people think smoking pot should be legal because they are libertarians. Other people are libertarians because they want smoking pot to be legal. Similar people on the surface, completely different underneath.

Blogger hadley September 23, 2015 12:43 PM  

@28: They're often non-breeders and have no investment in what future children will inherit. It's a variant of "eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die," rather than generational thinking. 

They and their women are sterile abortionists. Their parents are in nursing homes. They are Parents to the World, and adopt alien babies in lieu of making their own.

Their "telescopic philanthropy" is worse than Mrs. Jellyby's. She birthed her own babies.

Blogger Stickwick Stapers September 23, 2015 12:46 PM  

How do you tell the difference between an SJW and a run-of-the-mill liberal?

I've started a small SF/F club that's loosely affiliated with my church, and a couple of my liberal non-Christian colleagues have expressed interest in participating. Normally, this wouldn't be a problem at all, especially as I know these people and they are major SF geeks, but the explosion of SJWism in SF/F in particular has me feeling very wary. It's almost like pod people -- you don't necessarily know who's a pod and who isn't until they reveal themselves to you.

Anyway, I want to make sure I'm not letting people in who would potentially try to ruin the club. Is there an easy way to distinguish between someone who's just an annoying liberal and a malignant SJW?

Blogger Kirk Parker September 23, 2015 1:00 PM  

Stickwick,

Wait.... you're ok with letting "annoying" anybody into your group???

Blogger Chiva September 23, 2015 1:01 PM  

You always have to pay particular attention to HR and to anyone with control over internal affairs.

When you hear 'Diversity and Inclusion' from the HR department, then you know your organization has been corrupted.

Blogger Sevron September 23, 2015 1:15 PM  

But every company says that now. It's literally impossible to join a company of any size that employs professionals who don't toe the SJW line. I'm working on building up my own business so I can get a little more safety from them, but I don't think there's a third option.

Blogger Unknown September 23, 2015 1:18 PM  

@44 Amok is right. The libertarians I know would be conservatives if they weren't atheists. If they were happy with Christian proscriptions, they wouldn't be atheists. But I suppose there are Christian libertarians, and if so, they can't be the same underneath.

OpenID basementhomebrewer September 23, 2015 1:19 PM  

@ 46 I probably wouldn't let them in to begin with, but if you are hell bent on risking it then I would make sure that they are exposed to lots of discussions about your Church that just happened to come up during SF/F conversations. Non-Christian SJWs tend to start foaming at the mouth when exposed to conversations about Christianity. Watch for the snark and derisive side comments that are played off as jokes. If those comments start being made you know you are dealing with a SJW.

Blogger Unknown September 23, 2015 1:21 PM  

@46, ``liberal'' and ``non-Christian'' are both huge red flags. If they are not full-on SJWs themselves, they will make room for those who are, and will try to prevent you from expelling any SJWs who sneak in.

Virtuous pagans might not be vulnerable to the SJW infection, but there aren't really any of them in the modern world, so ``non-Christian'' today either means SJW or ``useful fool.'' Similarly, while there might be liberals who are not SJWs, if they are liberal, they have subscribed to a belief set which leaves them, and your little group, wide open to SJW entrists. Again, either SJW or useful fool.

Blogger VD September 23, 2015 1:28 PM  

I've started a small SF/F club that's loosely affiliated with my church, and a couple of my liberal non-Christian colleagues have expressed interest in participating.

Don't. Just don't.

Blogger CM September 23, 2015 1:29 PM  

Anyway, I want to make sure I'm not letting people in who would potentially try to ruin the club. Is there an easy way to distinguish between someone who's just an annoying liberal and a malignant SJW?

Gamers as a bloc have always been a bit left-leaning, but largely NOT SJW.

While the further left ones have higher tolerance for entryism (homosexual and trans-special relationships in ESO as examples), GG has shown that left-leaners can be just as anti-SJW.

I would say pc policing is a red flag and anyone who supports the policing should be kicked out with the SJW...

Blogger Trimegistus September 23, 2015 1:33 PM  

Stickwick:

I'd say the thing to watch out for is attempts to impose a hierarchy and a code of conduct. Neither of those things are necessary for people interested in SF to get together and talk about SF, which means anyone trying to impose them on the group has some other agenda.

The simple rule is, don't be lazy. If someone wants to take over the "boring routine jobs" they'll be running the whole shebang before long.

Also, I've noticed that SJWs are almost always unhappy, demanding people. If one of your group starts spending a lot of time talking about her health problems — or, God forbid, her mental health problems — that is someone who is going to start calling other people's remarks "hurtful" if they say something she doesn't like.

If I recall correctly, you are a woman, and that makes you considerably more vulnerable to SJW tactics: they kick up a fuss about something, and in the interest of calming the waters, you are likely to be tempted to compromise. Don't do it: any compromise is just ratcheting things in the direction they want before the next conflict. If there's a man in the group with any Alpha tendencies, make an alliance with him to keep the SJW types in check. All you have to do is laugh when he mocks them.

Blogger Stickwick Stapers September 23, 2015 1:48 PM  

Kirk Parker: Wait.... you're ok with letting "annoying" anybody into your group???

No. Their politics are annoying; as people, they're not annoying.

VD: Don't. Just don't.

Yeah, I won't.

Trimegistus: If I recall correctly, you are a woman, and that makes you considerably more vulnerable to SJW tactics: they kick up a fuss about something, and in the interest of calming the waters, you are likely to be tempted to compromise.

Yes, women are more susceptible to this stuff. However, first of all, I'm not stupid. Well, it's turned out pretty bad the last five hundred times someone compromised with these freaks, but I'm optimistic it won't happen THIS time! Second, I'm so utterly sick of this evil SJW crap that I'm not willing to tolerate it in the slightest. I just wasn't sure if there was still room for non-SJW liberals to get along with the rest of us, but it sounds like it's not worth the risk.

Blogger Groot September 23, 2015 2:02 PM  

@6. Robert What?:
"Even Google, Mozilla and Microsoft started out that way."

This is not true. Google selected Schmidt as CEO, and he was hard-core SJW from the Novell days. Mozilla has always been sopping with SJW. MS was neutral, but Gates' father is deep into it.

@17. Danby:
"You say that as if Libertarianism were on the Right. As currently instantiated, it's a Leftist movement. Trans-national, anti-ethnic, pro-Gay, etc. Libertarians merely believe we are at the 'whithering of the State' stage of Socialism, not the 'dictatorship of the Proletariat.'"

I finally get a couple of minutes in the morning, and my own side is pissing on me. A Libertarian is a Socialist? Seriously? Are Christians Atheists, too? I don't typically associate your comments with complete idiocy, so I'm going to assume you're drunk or something. Go piss on the enemy, instead.

@23. Trimegistus:
"As near as I can tell, Libertarianism..."

Libertarianism is not a local book club. Libertarians wrote the Constitution, ran the country until the Civil War, and have a deep shelf of writing and philosophy. It will survive carping from any passing pinhead.

@26. VFM bot #188:
"Libertarians today are almost always... They never... "idiots"...."

#188... You I know to be funny in the past, but you need to reinsert the thinking module. Read your own paragraph. Seriously, do it. You wrote that. Own it.

@45. hadley:
"They and their women are sterile abortionists. Their parents are in nursing homes. They are Parents to the World, and adopt alien babies in lieu of making their own."

You're talking about libertarians? All of them? I just want you to confirm this.

Blogger VD September 23, 2015 2:06 PM  

It will survive carping from any passing pinhead.

It won't survive the global mass migration unscathed. Not in its current open borders format, anyhow.

Blogger Groot September 23, 2015 2:14 PM  

@58. VD:
I still think of libertarians thought as being the good angel in this situation. How many pinheads can dance on an angel?

Blogger Sevron September 23, 2015 2:19 PM  

@Groot
One of the things I find most adorable about Libertairans is how unabashed they are about claiming credit for pretty much any historical thing that worked out well. They're kind of like Leftists in that way.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 2:24 PM  

Grrot
I'm sorry you're a Libertarian. You are deeply mired in a false philosophy and I pray you see the holes in it soon.
The Founders were not libertarian and cannot honestly be so portrayed. I hope you can see that there can be no such thing as a libertarian slave owner.

I'm not pissing on you. I cannot but speak as I see. I did not intend to insult but to describe. Please tell me what specifically about libertarianism, outside of the right to property, puts it on the right? Support for borders, language, culture, faith, tribe?

I see libertarianism as taking a purely leftist idea, radical autonomy, and making it their fetish. Please disabuse me of the notion.

And please, don't argue the truth or falsity of the philosophy. That would be boring.

OpenID Steve September 23, 2015 2:25 PM  

@23 Libertarianism in America... The only important freedoms to them are weed, gay sex, and atheism

The libertarian anthem "I'll never smoke weed with Willie again"

It's no wonder the SJWs are drawn to that, it's like getting paid to drink coffee and surf the web

I guess if they can't be a non Asian minority working like one is the next best thing.

Is there an easy way to distinguish between someone who's just an annoying liberal and a malignant SJW?

Don't let any annoying people into your house.

-BGS

Blogger Groot September 23, 2015 2:28 PM  

@60. Sevron:

So that's an adorable lie. You want to double down now?

Blogger Jim September 23, 2015 2:30 PM  

@50 "If they were happy with Christian proscriptions" I am quite happy with *most* Christian proscriptions (all if you are talking about how you behave, rather than what you believe, or worship. Do not steal/murder etc vs I am the LORD thy god, etc.) I am pretty much straight atheist-anarchist, and I get along fine with Christians who take "I don't believe" as a clue to not bother proselytizing at me just fine. I get along with the others too, I just ignore them and continue on with my life.

In short, I completely disagree with your claim.

Blogger Jim September 23, 2015 2:34 PM  

As an aside, is there a way to change my visual name, to be a tad more specific, whilst commenting via google login?

Blogger The Rev September 23, 2015 2:39 PM  

@46

Ask yourself this: how do your friends react when you talk about Christ - with tolerance and discussion or with sneering and dismissal? Do you ever engage them on issues you do not agree on? How do they react?

If they can't hold a serious discussion with you about divisive issues, do not expect them to do any better with your Church group. They will get triggered and angry, Your Christian friends will get annoyed. And you will bear the brunt of both groups' anger.

Best case scenario, you can ease your non-Christian friends into discussion of spiritual issues via discussions of Sci-Fi. Worse case scenario, you lose both groups of friends. Tread carefully.

Blogger Sevron September 23, 2015 2:50 PM  

You made the assertion that the country was founded and run by Libertarians, Barkly. You can defend it or keep on being a laughing stock. I don't care either way.

Blogger Russell (106) September 23, 2015 3:02 PM  

Stickwick: Is there an easy way to distinguish between someone who's just an annoying liberal and a malignant SJW?

An "annoying liberal" is a SJW's larval stage.

Blogger Groot September 23, 2015 3:04 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Groot September 23, 2015 3:04 PM  

@61. Danby:
"The Founders were not libertarian and cannot honestly be so portrayed. I hope you can see that there can be no such thing as a libertarian slave owner."

Nice disqualify. Slave owners were also Christian. Does that disqualify all Christians, too? "Libertarian" is the somewhat ungainly label we're currently stuck with for the stream of thought which was endorsed (though not universally), mostly in the Anglosphere, to wrench power away from the totalitarian royalty, nobility and clerisy which have centralized power since the dawn of history. The justification (libertarianism) can be summed up as: Other people have rights, too, and those rights are over their selves, as enumerated in the English bill of rights, and reflected in our own Bill of Rights.

"Please tell me what specifically about libertarianism, outside of the right to property, puts it on the right? Support for borders, language, culture, faith, tribe?"

I read more than anybody I know, and this makes me starkly aware of how much there is that I don't read, but I am just not aware of this open-borders strain in libertarian thought. Certainly not the Founding Fathers, not Mises, not Hayek, not Friedman (I have posted quotes from them before in these comments). Maybe some recent magazines or think tanks? I certainly don't believe in open borders, and find absolutely no libertarian qualm about it.

Culture, language, faith, etc., are where we live, where our hearts and minds mostly experience our lives. I don't want to see those things regulated, policed, and controlled from the center. This libertarian concern thus leaves room for family, church, community and associations to thrive, have influence, and this why libertarians and traditionalists are so often in harmony.

"I see libertarianism as taking a purely leftist idea, radical autonomy, and making it their fetish."

OK, "leftist,""radical" and "fetish" are charged words, but, even so, a strongly-held, even paranoid, tenacity to hold on to personal freedom against those who seek to control others, regulate them, police them: I'll admit to this. Sounds kind of like I hate SJWs, doesn't it?

Blogger Allan Davis September 23, 2015 3:04 PM  

I'm a libertarian; never made any secret of it. Heck, look at where I work.

I don't view it as a "failed" philosophy at all. It's built on the idea of personal freedom; the more government you have, the less freedom you have.

I admit, there are...gaps. Flaws. Areas still open to debate. Before I started reading Vox in any depth, I was just as much open-borders as the next libertarian, but I do see Vox's point here, so I guess that makes me some kind of flawed or lapsed libertarian in that regard.

...but that's a fringe discussion, not the core element.

-=ad=-

Blogger VFM bot #188 September 23, 2015 3:08 PM  

@Groot, who said @26. VFM bot #188:
"Libertarians today are almost always... They never... "idiots"....Read your own paragraph. Seriously, do it. You wrote that. Own it.


Did so. Oh, okay: I withdraw the last clause of the last sentence. I don't refer to them generally as "idiots," not really. It's just...their sneering hostility toward people of faith (not that I am one); their insistence on wide-open borders (I have been shunned by libertarians for questioning the wisdom of it); their ugly support for abortion-on-demand (up to and including partial birth abortion); their support for special status and rights for homosexuals (led by homosexual marriage of course); and their conspicuous failure to assert unfashionable libertarian positions such as freedom of association and the right to discriminate....

THOSE libertarians: "Idiots".

Blogger Allan Davis September 23, 2015 3:11 PM  

VFM 188, anyone supporting "special status" for any group isn't a libertarian. My opinion, of course.

-=ad=-

Blogger Groot September 23, 2015 3:29 PM  

@72. VFM bot #188:
OK, those people, I agree, are idiots, but those opinions are opinions independent of their claims to being libertarian. Most of the libertarians I know are deeply religious, and I know a lot of libertarians. I know pro- and anti-abortion ones, and there is as much ambivalence as in the general population, certainly nothing central to libertarian thinking either way. I would say that special rights for homosexuals is antithetical to libertarian precepts, as would be any special law for specific segments.

I'll repeat myself on the open borders question: The Revolution was fought to secure American borders and thus establish the nation. The leading libertarian (what we now label as libertarian) thinkers were fervently against them. A quick google search shows its proponents as being Huffington Post, NYT, and Reason magazine. Reason mag doesn't speak for all libertarians, and even they list it as being a relatively modern concern, since travel has been historically so much more difficult.

Blogger Stickwick Stapers September 23, 2015 3:40 PM  

Russell: An "annoying liberal" is a SJW's larval stage.

That was my primary concern.

Screw it; not worth it. I can proselytize these people on my own time and not risk the integrity of the club.

Blogger Student in Blue September 23, 2015 3:42 PM  

@Groot
Quit getting triggered.

Blogger Groot September 23, 2015 3:54 PM  

@67. Sevron:
"Barkly."

OK, that was funny.

1st, you lie. 2nd, you double down. 3rd, you project:

"keep on being a laughing stock."

Read some history. Seriously, read some history.

Blogger Unknown September 23, 2015 3:54 PM  

@64 Which claim? That my atheist libertarian friends would be Christians if they were happy with Christian proscriptions or that atheist and Christian libertarians must be different underneath?

It does not surprise me that you are not a Christian, because you are not happy with Christian proscriptions. Well, maybe you are with a few of them.

I get along well with my atheist friends. I even get along well with my libertarian friends. The one anarchist I know, she and I don't get along so well.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 3:55 PM  

. Slave owners were also Christian. Does that disqualify all Christians, too?
Nice strawman you have there. It was not a disqualification, it was an illustration of a category. If you're going to claim intellectual congruity with the Founders, you will have to stop using the word libertarian. There is simply not enough commonality, and certainly no history of intellectual descent.

I read more than anybody I know, and this makes me starkly aware of how much there is that I don't read, but I am just not aware of this open-borders strain in libertarian thought. Certainly not the Founding Fathers, not Mises, not Hayek, not Friedman (I have posted quotes from them before in these comments). Maybe some recent magazines or think tanks? I certainly don't believe in open borders, and find absolutely no libertarian qualm about it.
The Founders were no Libertarians. While open borders is by no means a universal position among libertarians, it is certainly a prominent one. Why you have not read this I cannot say. It's actually a position tied to anarcho-capitalism more tha libertarianism, but since most libertarians are to some degree or another anarcho-capitalists, a great many libertarians, especially the more doctrinaire ones, are definitely for open borders. Ron Paul was till quite recently. The Koch Brothers definitely are, .ESR certainly is:
"Also, current libertarian political candidates recognize that you can't demolish a government as large as ours overnight, and that great care must be taken in dismantling it carefully. For example, libertarians believe in open borders, but unrestricted immigration now would attract in a huge mass of welfare clients, so most libertarians would start by abolishing welfare programs before opening the borders"


Culture, language, faith, etc., are where we live, where our hearts and minds mostly experience our lives.
they are also a set of values and practices that need to be encouraged and protected.
I don't want to see those things regulated, policed, and controlled from the center.
Nor enforced from the periphery
This libertarian concern thus leaves room for family, church, community and associations to thrive, have influence, and this why libertarians and traditionalists are so often in harmony.
"Leaving room for" as long as they have no way to actually have any effect in people's lives. As in, Washington DC's gun laws leave room for citizens to own guns, so long as they don't try to buy, sell, transport or practice with them. Libertarians and Traditionalists are "so often in harmony" because Traditionalists are rare, Libertarians are not their worst enemy, and Libertarians dismiss them as fascists when they try to make their views heard.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 3:55 PM  


The justification (libertarianism) can be summed up as: Other people have rights, too, and those rights are over their selves, as enumerated in the English bill of rights, and reflected in our own Bill of Rights.
Which is the perfect illustration of why the Flounders were not libertarians. They certainly didn't believe anything close to that as a group, although I will grant you Patrick Henry.

OK, "leftist,""radical" and "fetish" are charged words, but, even so
"leftist" and "radical" as a part of "radical autonomy" are purely descriptive. Fetish was meant to evoke the more traditional meaning of the word, as a quasi-religious attachment to a a physical object. Which is suppose is pretty inflammatory, but probably not in the way it was taken.

strongly-held, even paranoid, tenacity to hold on to personal freedom against those who seek to control others, regulate them, police them: I'll admit to this.
This is why libertarianism is not of the Right. The Right is about supporting the intermediate institutions of society, family. church, community, etc. Libertarianism is about removing any and all authority over the individual, including that of the intermediate institutions..
Do you deny that you believe in radical autonomy?

Sounds kind of like I hate SJWs, doesn't it?
As much as Stalin hated Trotskiy, or Castro hated Che?

Blogger SirHamster (#201) September 23, 2015 3:59 PM  

OK, those people, I agree, are idiots, but those opinions are opinions independent of their claims to being libertarian. Most of the libertarians I know are deeply religious, and I know a lot of libertarians. I know pro- and anti-abortion ones, and there is as much ambivalence as in the general population, certainly nothing central to libertarian thinking either way. I would say that special rights for homosexuals is antithetical to libertarian precepts, as would be any special law for specific segments.

I would put it this way - libertarianism as a philosophy doesn't have a very good way to exclude people from its camp, and so "libertarian" gets tainted with the bad actors who confuse libertine with liberty.

Ex: Open border libertarian is libertarian, even though we here recognize the ills of open borders and the individual need to be able to close and lock a front door.

As a "conservative" going "reactionary", my criticism of libertarianism is that it doesn't have a proper moral anchor. "Everyone is left alone to do whatever they want" is not compatible with "If men were angels they would not need a government".

The Christian libertarian has that moral anchor, but libertarianism itself does not. And no, pro-abortion is not equally valid as anti-abortion - utterly opposite outcomes.

Blogger Josh September 23, 2015 3:59 PM  

This is why libertarianism is not of the Right. The Right is about supporting the intermediate institutions of society, family. church, community, etc. Libertarianism is about removing any and all authority over the individual, including that of the intermediate institutions..

Wrong. Libertarianism opposes our enemy, the state. That's it.

Blogger Josh September 23, 2015 4:03 PM  

I'm not pissing on you. I cannot but speak as I see. I did not intend to insult but to describe. Please tell me what specifically about libertarianism, outside of the right to property, puts it on the right? Support for borders, language, culture, faith, tribe?


Freedom. Retard.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 4:10 PM  

@Josh
Libertarianism opposes our enemy, the state. That's it.
I've been in and around libertarianism and Libertarians for decades. That is simply not true. Most libertarians want to start wih the the state, and once that's conquered they plan to move on to communities, the Church, and families. Then they plan to conquer human nature.

Freedom. Retard.
Society, Fag!

Blogger Sevron September 23, 2015 4:12 PM  

@Groot
As badly as Libertarwans may want to claim the Founders (but just the good ones, and only where they agreed with Libertarians of today), there's no intellectual basis for doing so. You can die on that hill if you want to, though, no skin off my teeth.

Blogger Josh September 23, 2015 4:14 PM  

there's no intellectual basis for doing so.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You were saying?

Blogger Josh September 23, 2015 4:15 PM  

Most libertarians want to start wih the the state, and once that's conquered they plan to move on to communities, the Church, and families.

Can you provide examples of libertarians saying this?

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 4:17 PM  

More seriously, Freedom is not exclusive to the Right. Leftists believe in all kinds of freedoms, like the Freedom to Fuck Anything Including Automobiles And Have Society Applaud. and the Freedom To Define Yourself as anything Regardless of Reality (both of which freedoms, I note, are supported by a heavy majority of Libertarians)

Blogger Josh September 23, 2015 4:17 PM  

Society, Fag!

That's a fundamentally leftist notion.

Blogger Sevron September 23, 2015 4:18 PM  

Haha oh man so anything with the word "liberty" in it is Libertarian? That doesn't even rise to Wikipedia-level argumentation.

Blogger Josh September 23, 2015 4:18 PM  

(both of which freedoms, I note, are supported by a heavy majority of Libertarians)

Can you provide any evidence to support this claim?

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 4:20 PM  

Every reference to freedom is not an endorsement of Libertarianism.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Those words could have been penned by Lenin or Mao.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 4:24 PM  

@Josh
Do you know any Libertarians?
Look here,"
The Libertarian Party of the United States takes the following positions relevant to LGBT rights:[11]

Section 1.3 "Personal Relationships":
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships."

Blogger Koanic September 23, 2015 4:28 PM  

NALALT!

What a useless debate, full of undefined terms, fainting ladies and angry knights errant.

Nobody can design a successful society that lasts longer than 10 generations anyway, so you guys are just arguing over which brand of car to drive off the cliff. Conservataurus or Libertardexus WHO WILL WIN???!!!!5??1!!11

Since Groot is now Gabble, guess I'll have to say it:

I am Koanic.

Blogger Josh September 23, 2015 4:39 PM  

Do you know any Libertarians?

Yes. Also, I am one. Lots of dread ilk are. Vox is.

Look here,"
The Libertarian Party of the United States takes the following positions relevant to LGBT rights:[11]


Libertarian != libertarian.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 4:39 PM  

@Koanic
Nobody can design a successful society
you could have stopped there. That's why traditionalism is better on every level.

Blogger Groot September 23, 2015 4:44 PM  

So some history. The costs of travel in the 1700s was so high, that people would accept a ticket to travel to the New World at the cost of 4 to 7 years of their life as indentured servants (quasi-slaves).

The current concern over mass migration is a new one because only now is cross-continent travel cheap enough to be afforded by starving migrants.

I will say, if anybody has until now entertained a lofty goal of open borders, they will be instructed or they are incapable of instruction.

And, Danby, get a grip. For crying out loud. Look, the historical intellectual descent of libertarian thought from the Revolution to today is not some arcane goat path in the misty jungles; it is a six-lane freeway. Starting, not so arbitrarily, with Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, through Murray Rothbard's voluminous economic histories and Mises, Hayek and Friedman's writings, TV productions, etc., the development of these ideas from the libertarians of the Revolution are explicit, verbose, sometimes very entertaining, and not in dispute.

Blogger Josh September 23, 2015 4:44 PM  

Those words could have been penned by Lenin or Mao.

Given that they were atheist?

Congratulations, you've written one of the dumbest comments in the history of this blog.

Blogger Sevron September 23, 2015 4:49 PM  

"Lord God, give us the strength that we may retain our liberty for our children and our children's children, not only for ourselves but also for the other peoples of Europe, for this is a war which we all wage, this time, not for our German people alone, it is a war for all of Europe and with it, in the long run, for all of mankind."
-A.Hitler

There you have it folks, according to Josh, Hitler was a Libertarian. I mean, he used the word "liberty", it's so obvious.

Blogger CM September 23, 2015 4:51 PM  

Yes. Also, I am one. Lots of dread ilk are. Vox is.

With a lot of caveats and disclaimers.

Reason mag has been discredited here, VD has noted the prevalence of open border advocates by enough libertarians that he has suggested (if not outright said) he could be described as a nationalist libertarian.

There are many brands of libertarian that has been pointed out by all the ilk here. So why you are arguing the point that american, self-described libertarians are not left leaning and heavily libertine is beyond me.

Blogger VFM bot #188 September 23, 2015 4:54 PM  

Do you know any Libertarians?

Yes. Also, I am one. Lots of dread ilk are. Vox is.


Welll...if you listen to the Countercurrents interview between Vox and Greg Johnson, you'll find a discussion about why neither of them are libertarians now...or at least not "large-L" libertarians. You can listen to it at http://cdn.counter-currents.com/radio/VoxDay.mp3.

A good place to start is at 4:00.

Blogger Allan Davis September 23, 2015 5:00 PM  

The Libertarian party got co-opted and converted into "Republican Lite" a long time ago. Many small-L libertarians no longer identify with them.

-=ad=-

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 5:00 PM  

@Josh,
Learn some history, please, you're only embarrassing yourself.
The word Creator was used as an intentional dodge to avoid using God. The Deists used the word Creator specifically with the idea that the Creator of man or any other animal was Nature, not God.. It was a way to secure an agreement between Christians and effective Atheists. And to avoid opprobrium and possible social consequences, for one's effective Atheism.
So yes, in the sense that the words were written, an Atheist could easily have written them.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 5:02 PM  

Also, @Josh,
I have been pretty careful here on keeping my use of Libertarian vs libertarian straight.
I'm not new to this particular rodeo.

Blogger CM September 23, 2015 5:03 PM  

The Libertarian party got co-opted and converted into "Republican Lite" a long time ago. Many small-L libertarians no longer identify with them.

Its actually a mash-up between hardline, far right conservatives and social-left/economic-right lefties.

"Republican Lite" are the reigning elite of the Republican Party and the righties in the L party are the ones who got abandoned on the leftward move.

Blogger Koanic September 23, 2015 5:04 PM  

@96 Traditional societies fare no better.

I'm here for your hope. Have a nice day.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 5:04 PM  

And, Danby, get a grip. For crying out loud. Look, the historical intellectual descent of libertarian thought from the Revolution to today is not some arcane goat path in the misty jungles; it is a six-lane freeway. "

I realize that's the Libertarian dogma, but it's not history.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 5:08 PM  

Question Groot,
Rothbard, Hayek, Mises, Friedman
What do these men all have in common?

Hint: it has to do with the American tradition of political thought.

Blogger Josh September 23, 2015 5:12 PM  

The Deists used the word Creator specifically with the idea that the Creator of man or any other animal was Nature, not God

If that's the case, why did they make a distinction between Nature and Nature's God?

Blogger Josh September 23, 2015 5:14 PM  

There are many brands of libertarian that has been pointed out by all the ilk here. So why you are arguing the point that american, self-described libertarians are not left leaning and heavily libertine is beyond me.

Because most of them aren't.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 5:15 PM  

Nature's God is Science. Even in the 18th century. Look some of this stuff up.

Blogger Josh September 23, 2015 5:16 PM  

Nature's God is Science. Even in the 18th century. Look some of this stuff up.

Got a source for that?

Blogger Groot September 23, 2015 5:22 PM  

@107. Danby:

It is, literally, history. You obviously haven't read any of them, or you wouldn't insist so emphatically on what isn't factual. But I'm thinking you're sliding off of the dialectical, and soon charges of poopy-head will be flying. Or is Automobile Sex already deep into the rhetorical?

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 5:27 PM  

Looks Josh, I realize I'm challenging your self-image, but you need to look some of this shit up for yourself.
As I said before, I'm not new to this rodeo. I've been in and around libertarians and libertarianism for 35 years. I know what libertarianism is and where it came from. Like Wicca, it tries to hide it's real origins in the dim past of remembered glories.

Libertarianism is a concoction of 1st generation Jewish economists in New York, as well as Austria trying to find a middle path between Communism and Fascism. That's what it is, that's where it came from.
How they managed to sell, "Rich People and Bankers Should Control Society Without Interference From the Government" as freedom, I'll never understand, although your intelligent commentary and witty repartee is illustrative in that regard at least.

Frankly responding to each of you illiterate "UH-UHN T'ain't either"s is wearing on my nerves. Be as libertarian or Libertarian as you want. I don't care. I'll refrain from calling you an unliterate goob and merely say that you need to read some actual history from unapproved sources, and maybe challenge the official story you've been fed.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 5:29 PM  

A dialectical man can throw in a rhetorical barb or two to keep it from becoming boring.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 5:31 PM  

@Groot,
What, specifically have I insisted on that isn't factual?

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 5:41 PM  

@root,
Also, you have yet to actually answer my question:
What specifically about libertarianism, outside of the right to property, puts it on the right?

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 5:44 PM  

@groot,
Or the other question:
Rothbard, Hayek, Mises, Friedman
What do these men all have in common?

Blogger MidKnight (#138) September 23, 2015 5:54 PM  

@ron winkleheimer
I stopped reading Slashdot years ago because of that. Verily, there was no subject where discussion did not turn to the perfidy of conservatives.

Ditto. Slashdot and Ars . Stopped paying attention to them 10+ years ago.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 6:44 PM  

Well, it's been an hour, so I'm going to reply to myself.
I presume the "historical fact" that Groot is referring to above is his assertion that modern libertarianism is descended from the Founders.
The plain fact of the matter is that modern libertarianism was formed by Murray rRothbard and Milton Friedman in the US and Frederich Hayek in Austria and London, and Lidwig von Mises in Austria and the US.
What did these gentlemen have in common? They were all Jewish intellectuals, raised and trained in the European tradition, and even the ones born in America had virtually no contact with traditional American political thought in the development of their theories. One could no more call their thinking a continuation of the Founding Fathers than one could call Marx a continuation of the Schoolmen.
They did, however, find their theories a very easy sell in the US, because Americans value Liberty. By equating their vision of radical autonomy with Freedom, and Freedom with Liberty (protip: they are not the same thing), and recruiting genuinely American writers like Rose Wilder Lane as their propagandists, they were able to get themselves well established in the American political scene. They came at a propitious time, the New Deal, when both Freedom and Liberty were under serious assault from the Puritans, the Socialists and Fascisti.

And, of course, all new recruits are sold the same line, libertarianism is the Heritage of our Forefathers, and the founding philosophy of America. Utter Bunk.

Blogger Josh September 23, 2015 7:03 PM  

Looks Josh, I realize I'm challenging your self-image, but you need to look some of this shit up for yourself.

Doesn't work that way. You haven't answered my question.

Do. You. Have. A. Source. For. That?

Blogger Groot September 23, 2015 7:07 PM  

@116. and @118. Danby:
"What, specifically have I insisted on that isn't factual?"
"What do these men all have in common?"

You cannot read the Federalist Papers, Wealth of Nations (pub. 1776), the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and then just keep reading over a couple of centuries until modern libertarian writing without seeing an uninterrupted progression of (what we now call libertarian) thought. It is in modern English, easily accessible, much of it very readable, and profuse. I guess it's possible, but I just don't believe that you haven't read any of this material. You don't have go approved or "unapproved" sources; they are available to be read themselves (something we can thank the internet for).

Yet you airily dismiss it out of hand, because Joos. Commie plot. Fascists.

"What specifically about libertarianism, outside of the right to property, puts it on the right?"

It's not on the Manichean right. Some years after the American Revolution, the French had a crack against the monarchy. Those for the king sat on his right; those against him sat on his left. The left (against the king), ended up with an Emperor. The left/right distinction looks to me as two similar satellites orbiting one star; I see libertarian thinking, focused, as you note, on liberty, around another star. The left/right categorization doesn't seem very useful, if it's between a king and an emperor. Liberty is en entirely different organizing principle.

Blogger Josh September 23, 2015 7:08 PM  

Libertarianism is a concoction of 1st generation Jewish economists in New York, as well as Austria trying to find a middle path between Communism and Fascism. That's what it is, that's where it came from.
How they managed to sell, "Rich People and Bankers Should Control Society Without Interference From the Government" as freedom, I'll never understand, although your intelligent commentary and witty repartee is illustrative in that regard at least.


Because Austrian economics is such an advocate of central banking?

Blogger Groot September 23, 2015 7:09 PM  

An hour? Jeez, most days, it's about twelve hours between check-ins on this site. I actually have some time today, but there's still life.

Blogger Allan Davis September 23, 2015 7:11 PM  

"Placing limits on government"--because, if you don't, it will quickly transform into a totalitarian nightmare--is the tradition of American founder philosophy. We can debate whether that fits the definition of "libertarian" or not; I think it does.

Liberty and freedom? I get "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." for liberty and "the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views." for freedom. They both speak of limits imposed on the individual, so I don't understand your point of separating the two.

Mises gained no traction because the world was holding Keynes in awe instead at the time.

-=ad=-

Blogger Allan Davis September 23, 2015 7:15 PM  

I don't see how "Rich People Work Hand In Hand With Government To Control Society" is better than "Rich People And Bankers Control Society." In fact, without government to back them up, I'm fairly sure the Rich People couldn't control society.

-=ad=-

Blogger Groot September 23, 2015 7:15 PM  

@120. Danby:
"even the ones born in America had virtually no contact with traditional American political thought in the development of their theories"

I will say it flatly: You have never read any of what you are dismissing. They wrote long, detailed, intimate histories of economic thought, covering all branches of economics. I have read many of them. What you are declaring -- in bold, no less -- is egregiously factually incorrect. You are simply making shit up.

Blogger bob k. mando September 23, 2015 7:29 PM  

23. Trimegistus September 23, 2015 10:56 AM
The right of self-defense, economic liberty, and political freedom have been bargained away in exchange for legal weed and the mockery of gay marriage.



this is due, in no small part, to Reason magazine having been left in the care of Nick Gillespie when Virginia Postrel went on to other things.


the question is how Gillespie got to Asst Editor in Chief before she left.


65. Jim September 23, 2015 2:34 PM
As an aside, is there a way to change my visual name



yes. my G+ account actually comes up as "Robert Mando", i had to modify my personnel account settings in order to display as "bob k. mando"


70. Groot September 23, 2015 3:04 PM
Nice disqualify. Slave owners were also Christian. Does that disqualify all Christians, too?


slavery is permissible in the OT, not forbidden in the NT.

therefore, the current anti-slavery position of Christianity is ... an extrapolation of other theology ... or a humanist accretion.



73. Allan Davis September 23, 2015 3:11 PM
anyone supporting "special status" for any group isn't a libertarian. My opinion, of course.



yeah, well go have it out with Gillespie.


97. Groot September 23, 2015 4:44 PM
The current concern over mass migration is a new one



absolutely false.

in 1924, the US was closed to almost ALL immigration from Europe. because of large amounts of Slav and Med immigration in the previous 50 years.

in the early 20th, when unions were big, hispanic union members were some of the most vociferous anti-illegal alien voices in the country. because illegals directly competed with the farming unions in Cali and drove wages down.

then there were the concerns about the Chinese in the west and the Irish Catholics in the 1800s.

'immigration' of all kinds has pretty much always been a political football.

Blogger bob k. mando September 23, 2015 7:33 PM  

65. Jim September 23, 2015 2:34 PM
As an aside, is there a way to change my visual name



sorry, you actually change that in your Blogspot profile.

click on your name to bring up your Blogger page, then click "Edit Profile", scroll down to Identity > Display Name

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 7:40 PM  

You cannot read the Federalist Papers, Wealth of Nations (pub. 1776), the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and then just keep reading over a couple of centuries until modern libertarian writing without seeing an uninterrupted progression of (what we now call libertarian) thought.

I can and I have.

You have to learn to stop reading "libertarian" when the word on the page is Liberty. Go find out what the Founders meant by the word Liberty. I'm sure you see it as libertarian thought, because you're an ideologue. A feminist sees either feminist or patriarchal thought. A communist sees either capitalist or socialist thought. And the gays think Lincoln was a homosexual. What you see is what you are conditioned to see, and what you want to stake a claim to.
The founders no more believed in libertarianism than they believed in laissez-faire capitalism. The concept was not yet extant.
What is the link between the thinking of Washington and Jefferson, Jackson and Hamilton, and that of Rothbard, Friedman, Hayek and Mises? Where is it? yuou keep claiming an uninterrupted progression, what is that progression? Just because they all claimed to love liberty, does not mean they were all saying the same thing. Every 2-bit SJW loves liberty too.

Now I'm an anti-semite? Fuck you, you sniveling cur. Respond to what I wrote, not to what triggered you.

Oh, and now being right or left doesn't matter, and it's an incorrect view of the problem? Then why so angry and butthurt when I called you a member of the Left? If Left and Right are meaningless, what does it matter. I also note that you are now putting me on the anti-Freedom side with the Left. See note above about dismissing Traditionalists as fascists.Aslso note, that libertarians are not about Liberty, but about Freedom.

Dude, it's no shame being a Leftist. You get to be more Freedom-loving than me, within certain narrowly-defined definitions of freedom. And maybe someday you'll grow up.

Josh,
Where is the word "central" in my statement. Reading comprehension, you should try it. And since enslavement of the poor to the rich is the net effect of a Libertarian system, it doesn't matter whether the bankers are central bankers of local bankers. They'll be rich and they'll buy and sell people, just like the serf system in the middle ages. Unless you want to claim that Austrian economics is entirely against banking?

@Allan
We can debate whether that fits the definition of "libertarian" or not; I think it does.
Yet another libertarian sleight-of-hand. It's Freedom so it's Liberty so it's libertarian! Yay!

When everything you like is libertarian, and everything you dislike is anti-libertarian, back through the earliest annals of history, what you have is ideology, not perspective. You can certainly try to redefine the Founders as libertarian "because they loved Liberty" I don't have to accept that redefinition.

Blogger Unknown September 23, 2015 8:17 PM  

I identify as a constitutional, free market (not crony capitalist) conservative with populist leanings (as opposed to elitist leanings). As a registered republican, that pretty much makes me a RINO.

Apparently, the physics of libertarianism leads to the many libertarian worlds paradigm. Since I'm too confused about the whole thing such that I'm no longer confident I can accurately characterize libertarianism, I'll just state a few issues on which I disagree with some libertarians who promote them:

# Issue (libertarian proponent(s))

1. Open borders (ESR, Koch Bros./Cato)
2. Gay BSA leaders (Nick Gillespie)
3. Legalized Pot (all of them?)
4. Legalized prostitution (Glen Reynolds)

I fear some libertarians identify as such because admitting to being a conservative is not so cool anymore. That's understandable, given the soiling conservatism has received at the hands of the Republican Party establishment.

Blogger Groot September 23, 2015 8:25 PM  

@130. Danby:
"Go find out what the Founders meant by the word Liberty. I'm sure you see it as libertarian thought, because you're an ideologue."

I'm quite careful to state that "libertarian" is only a current label for a current of thought. I have read what they've written. Their own words, not a historian's interpretation alone (though I've read plenty of those). Washington was no libertarian; Hamilton, hell no; Jefferson, yes; Jackson, a true closed-borders monoculturalist libertarian, sort of (he loved martial law way too much). Again, using the label we use today, mostly and mostly in the US. "Ideologue" is very feelz word, but I'll own it, no problem. What matters, too, besides their writing, are the artifacts which the most important libertarians of the time constructed, principally the Constitution by Madison. He had experience writing State constitutions, was a student of governments historically, and strove arduously to create systems which imposed limits on government, via checks and balances, competing chambers, enumerated powers and all things which are not hidden, abstruse, controversial or unavailable for easy written from the comfort of your browser. And very libertarian.

"Now I'm an anti-semite? Fuck you, you sniveling cur. Respond to what I wrote"
You're a poopy-head, too. Here's what you wrote: "They were all Jewish intellectuals, raised and trained in the European tradition". In other words, Joos.

"why so angry and butthurt when I called you a member of the Left?"
You like them feelz wyrdz. Are you mad? Did that upset you? I don't even remember if you called me a leftist. I consider it irrelevant, as I just explained. It is also a very commonly expressed point of view that it's irrelevant. You have copious libertarian acquaintances and have never heard it? OK.

And I actually have no idea what fine distinction you're making between Liberty and Freedom. I assume it's some idiosyncratic personal system, certainly not historical or in any dictionary, but go ahead.

@128. bob k. mando:

No, you're right. When I start thinking of history, I start thinking about the last 100 years as "recently," but I'll admit that that is not the customary standard.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 8:36 PM  

@Groot,
There's a difference between propaganda and development of theory. libbertarianism is political development of Austrian Economics was developed out of the Methodenstreit controversies of European Economics, not out of American political theory. Of course, when trying to sell it to a largely American audience, they were going to try to tie it into the most revered figures in American Secular religion. That's how propaganda is done.

I've been hinting up to now, but you lot are too thick to figure this out.
When the Founders talk about Liberty, they are not talking about absolute freedom to do anything you want. No society could survive that. They are talking about the freedom to to the right thing. The chief reason so many of the early colonists came here was to escape a government that would not allow them to do as their consciences demanded, whether that was worshiping God on the right way, calling out the Crown when it went astray, raising their children as they saw fit, the government interfered in doing what was right in their eyes. Rose Wilder Lane's mother, Laura Ingalls Wilder, talks about her realization of this fact in one of the Little House books.
What you call Liberty they called License, and they condemned license univocally.

Just because they claimed the mantle of the founders does not mean that the Austrians were their heirs.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 8:40 PM  

Here's what you wrote: "They were all Jewish intellectuals, raised and trained in the European tradition". In other words, Joos.

No, in other words, not culturally American. It wouldn't matter to point being made if they were Russians, or Irish, or Igbo tribesmen. The point is they were not culturally American, and not heirs of the Founders.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 8:44 PM  

1. I finally get a couple of minutes in the morning, and my own side is pissing on me. A Libertarian is a Socialist?
2. You like them feelz wyrdz. Are you mad? Did that upset you? I don't even remember if you called me a leftist.


No, you were mad. I was "pissing on you" by calling you a leftist. And the dismissiveness is nicely SJW, by the way. Good pose there.
Dear God, can someone rid me of these tiresome mid-wits?

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 8:45 PM  

Y'know what Groot? Your arguments are sounding more and more SJWish. You might want to firm them up a little.

Blogger Groot September 23, 2015 9:05 PM  

@133. Danby:
"When the Founders talk about Liberty, they are not talking about absolute freedom to do anything you want. No society could survive that. They are talking about the freedom to to the right thing."

That is a straw man. Even an extreme libertarian doesn't claim "absolute freedom to do anything." Colonists came for many, varied reasons, but their widespread use of Liberty spiked before and during the Revolutionary War. There were a few dominant and influential publications. Probably the most consequential of these was Tom Paine's <a href="http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/singlehtml.htm>Common Sense</a>. He sold enough copies to have one in every household in the colonies. His use of Liberty is to describe liberty to choose one's religious beliefs, to choose one's government, and describes an "enemy to liberty" as one who has a "thirst for arbitrary power." This guy was a hard-core libertarian, and his pamphlet had enough influence to make it's meaning of "liberty" the standard one at the time.

Your personal distinction just didn't hold at the time, just as it's only a Danby idiosyncrasy today.

Blogger Danby September 23, 2015 9:17 PM  

I'll give you Paine, but Paine was hardly mainstream. Paine rejected the results of the Revolution. He denounced the US, and went on to France, which was more to his revolutionary liking.

Blogger Groot September 23, 2015 9:18 PM  

@135. Danby:
No, I was reacting to your describing a libertarian as a socialist, a word with an actual meaning. I don't care about the leftist namecalling because it's meaningless. Some people call socialists leftists and some call socialists (especially National Socialists) as right wing: it's almost devoid of meaning, and too mushy to convey much semantic payload.

'2. You like them feelz wyrdz. Are you mad? Did that upset you? I don't even remember if you called me a leftist.'

"No, you were mad... Your arguments are sounding more and more SJWish. You might want to firm them up a little."

That was me mocking you for your SJW feelz tone, in a mock SJW style. I'll confess that the rhetoric works less effectively online for me. In person, I can loom threateningly. Oh, well.

Blogger JimR September 23, 2015 9:46 PM  

@129 Thanks Bob, appreciate the assist

OpenID Jack Amok September 23, 2015 11:52 PM  

The Libertarian party got co-opted and converted into "Republican Lite" a long time ago. Many small-L libertarians no longer identify with them.

I think the problem with the Big-L Libertarian Party is that it established a reputation as a loser party unable to influence electoral politics, so clear-thinking small-L libertarians stayed away from it, trying to co-opt the Republican Party. They failed, and meanwhile left the Libertarian Party to the fringe kooks, social outcasts, and "message senders" (a related species to todays Migtows). In other words, a bunch of people who chose their political party as a fashion statement.

(and hey, given how corrupt most parties are, maybe a fashion statement is the best use one can make of them, but it's still nothing practical or effective)

Blogger SciVo September 24, 2015 2:19 AM  

@ Stickwick Stapers: "Is there an easy way to distinguish between someone who's just an annoying liberal and a malignant SJW?"

Sure. Ask them whether it's okay for a wedding photographer to decline to do a gay wedding because of his religious beliefs. For bonus points, if they say no, condemn their anti-Muslim racism and demand that they check their mainstream political privilege. Then see if they sputter.

Blogger Groot September 24, 2015 4:03 AM  

@Danby:
You're a class act. Few withstand Groot for more than a few comments, and I appreciate your Cool Hand Luke pig-headedness. I would have a drink with you, unlike these flinching, cringing, won't-meet-your-gaze slack-jawed faggots.

Blogger VFM 188 September 24, 2015 7:41 AM  

Speaking as a flinching, cringing, won't-meet-your-gaze, slack-jawed faggot...I am offended! I resemble that!

You are Groot.

Blogger VFM 188 September 24, 2015 7:44 AM  

I think the problem with the Big-L Libertarian Party is that it established a reputation as a loser party unable to influence electoral politics, so clear-thinking small-L libertarians stayed away from it, trying to co-opt the Republican Party. They failed.

Pretty much, but not everywhere. The LP is irrelevant everywhere, but in New Hampshire (Free State Project again) there are 20 or 30 stone libertarians (including some anarchists) in the state legislature; almost all of them are Republicans, but libertarians get elected to the state legislature there as Democrats also. Just FYI>

Blogger Allan Davis September 24, 2015 9:26 AM  

...I've got an overnight's worth of comments to get caught up on here and a day job to dive into, but I wanted to at least drop in.

My opinion: Libertarianism is the only "ism" that starts from a moral core--the Non-Aggression Principle. "Thou shalt not initiate aggression against another." From a property standpoint, "what's yours is yours.'
Communism? "What's yours isn't yours."
Socialism? "What's yours is really ours."
Fascism? "What's yours is yours, but we'll tell you what to do with it."
Democrat-ism? "What's yours is yours, unless we come up with a good excuse, like 'think of the children.'"
Republican-ism? "What's yours is yours, unless we come up with a good excuse, like toppling one of those evil bad guys on the other side of the globe."

Does libertarianism have flaws and gaps? Of course. Borders, abortion, and others. Does libertarianism have a label problem? Sure. Anyone can claim to be a libertarian, just like anyone can claim to be a conservative. But it all comes back to that core non-aggression principle. For me, at least.

-=ad=-

Blogger Danby September 24, 2015 11:16 AM  

@groot
Thank you for your flattery. It's fun to actually be able to argue, I appreciat the opportunity. If you're ever in the wild woods of Western Washington, I'll provide the beer.

Blogger Jim Milo September 24, 2015 6:28 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Jim Milo September 24, 2015 6:30 PM  

@23 Not even remotely comparable. Anti-weed people are the most insidious moral entrepreneurs and rent-seekers.

Remember it was sufferagettes that pushed for Prohibition.

I don't abide authoritarians, and pushing sumptuary laws are evidence of one in my book.

Blogger Jim Milo September 24, 2015 6:39 PM  

@44 And others note that today's pot is tomorrow's trans-fats.

The Bloomberg soda ban wouldn't have happened if the sheeple thought things being banned "for your own good and society's" wasn'thecomparable to the War on Some Drugs.

OpenID ymarsakar September 25, 2015 9:40 AM  

If you don't force them out, if you don't keep them out, they will eventually take you out and take it over. Don't think you, your organization, or your purpose is too valuable or important, the Narrative ALWAYS comes first and foremost for SJWs.

And if the SJWs are already running the show, leave. Stop supporting it. If you can summon the manpower to take it back, then do so, but if you can't, set up your own show in direct competition with it and run them out that way.


That reminds me of Crusader King 2's simulation of feudalism and plotting. Except they were simulating individual traits, not hive minds.

Blogger Bradford Walker September 25, 2015 7:23 PM  

And now, a follow-up.

This Tweet came from the official CONvergence feed: https://twitter.com/CONvergenceCon/status/647547638896807936

Three red flags right off the bat: "diverse", "vibrant", and a picture of a sea of people who contradict the very "diversity" and "vibrancy" so claimed.

But it gets better. At the linked page where the convention goes into its press release for Panel Programming suggestions we find this:

This year there will also be a CONvergence Programming Brainstorming Session at JOFCon! As you may be aware, CONvergence is completely volunteer-run and managed. Journeypeople of Fandom Convention (JOFCon) is all about what goes into putting on events like CONvergence; it is a gathering to discuss how we make volunteer-run conventions happen, and how to organize, nurture, and improve our con running communities! CONvergence has partnered with JOFCon and we are excited to let you know about this very cool event. The day and time of JOFCon’s CONvergence Programming Brainstorming Session will be announced on their website.

This makes the cross-org networking by the SJWs explicit, as this language means to normalize this practice via deliberate revelation of the method. The cancer is very deep indeed in the Twin Cities fan convention scene if this is the case, and the connections to dominant cliques in other regions should give people pause for concern in their local fan orgs. JOFCon is the sort of insider event that's perfect for organizing entryist attempts at all stages.

Take care to monitor the conventions and conferences relevant to your interests. If you see the signs, then that is the time to decide what to do- and then how to do it.

Blogger joe camel September 26, 2015 3:07 PM  

re Libertarian and Founders
Is someone seriously suggesting that slave holders and protectionists were libertarians? That is so funny. Libertarianism is a recent philosophy that has yet to advance beyond theory.
Weed
Is one area where the founders were 'libertarian'. Personally, I would be happy to see hemp, tobacco, and liquor come under the same regulation that applies to herbal teas.i.e. none.
Entryism
Unfortunately, down under these codes would likely be mandated by public law, hence the idiotic thus generated by Adam Baldwin's appearance.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts