ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, May 07, 2017

When rhetoric doesn't work

As I pointed out in SJWAL, the best rhetoric is based in truth. Conversely, the worst and least effective rhetoric is based in falsehood and posturing to uphold an obviously false narrative. In light of which observation, the following exchange on The Zman's blog struck me as more than a little amusing.

First, a wounded libertarian tried to play a rhetorical fast one by striking a superior pose and resorting to a common meme:
I’ve reading some of your anti-libertarian rants lately. And the phrase that comes to mind is:

“show me on the doll where the mean libertarian touched you”.

Seriously – pretty much every person you’ve ascribed libertarian leanings to in your recent columns – with the exception of Charles Murray – is somebody I have NEVER heard of before , and I’ve been reading libertarian literature and columnists for a good 15-20 years now.

I’m starting to think this whole ascribing “libertarian” leanings to a bunch is another episode of that long running mini-series: “Look at me – I’m a conservative and I don’t know what the &%$! conservatism is”.

Previous seasons have given us a bunch of conservatives who filled up the Republican party with Neo-conservatives.

Apparently nobody went to look up what “neo” means.

Looks like we might be playing the same game again – except this time we’ve got a bunch of liberals calling themselves libertarians. Apparently because the words begin with “lib” everybody stopped thinking it out and thinks they’re one and the same.
The Zman didn't need to respond, because the commenter's pretensions were punctured, and his rhetoric was destroyed, by a single question from another commenter.

You’ve never heard of Reason magazine and Nick Gillespie?

That made me laugh. What sort of "libertarian" who has been "reading libertarian literature and columnists for a good 15-20 years now" is unfamiliar with the #1 libertarian magazine and what was ranked the #4 libertarian site back in 2012. Of course, the sad state of libertarianism can probably be best understood by the realization that this very site was ranked #51 that year. Or by simply reflecting upon the last two Libertarian presidential campaigns.

It's over. Let reason - and Reason - be silent when observation and experience gainsay its theories.

What libertarians need to ask themselves are these two questions: One, is my ideal of maximizing liberty in my society, the human society in which I actually live, presently dependent upon the core libertarian ideas of the Non-Aggression Principle and the Sovereign Individual? And, two, at this particular moment in history, do those core libertarian dogmas tend to expand or to reduce human liberty in my society?

Labels: ,

153 Comments:

Anonymous simplytimothy May 07, 2017 6:25 AM  

It's over. Let reason - and Reason - be silent when observation and experience gainsay its theories.

That will leave a mark.

Blogger Koanic May 07, 2017 6:46 AM  

Libertarianism is nonsensical because it ignores the contractual rights of God, father and nation.

It is an accountant tabulating bull thrusts into his wife.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore May 07, 2017 7:21 AM  

Would someone be kind enough to briefly explain the concept of the "sovereign individual". I'm still tryna' figure this thing out. I might have already grasped this concept but under a different name.

Blogger Jamie-R May 07, 2017 7:21 AM  

Vox Popoli has come a long way. Well me too. Once I used to drink & post here, & once you criticised me for making libertarianism look like what conservatives think it is, an excuse for licentiousness without the God *ahem* delusion. Anyway, I once said we're all Christian Libertarians now too. That's gay. There's a lot of douche chills from the 2000s. A simpler time, when Kanye's Golddigger was edgy culture. That said, I'd love to see Nirvana's Rape Me in today's world. Play that on SNL again. Kurt Cobain will use the shotgun on fat chicks.

Anonymous Icicle May 07, 2017 7:25 AM  

Are you sure you were only drinking?

Blogger Duke Norfolk May 07, 2017 7:28 AM  

One of the things that's also going on here is that it is true that some of the criticism of libertarianism is off base and inaccurate, and this makes even some former libertarians feel compelled to come in and correct the errors. But that's a fruitless and pointless - simply academic - exercise, as the whole thing is moot, as Vox has elucidated.

I know that I've had that urge myself, but the efforts are a massive waste of time and energy, to say the least.

Let it go people!

(I say all this as someone who now sees these things as Vox does, having gotten there partially with his help.)

Blogger Chris Lutz May 07, 2017 7:31 AM  

@3 I think in layman's terms it means "You can't make me do anything as long as I don't hurt anyone else." Add your preferred childish taunts at the end. It's simple like Marxism and it just doesn't work in reality.

Blogger Shimshon May 07, 2017 7:32 AM  

The Zman had me at "The First Thing We Do, Let’s Kill All The Libertarians".

Blogger Al From Bay Shore May 07, 2017 7:35 AM  

@7 Thanx!

Blogger Shimshon May 07, 2017 7:41 AM  

As I mentioned in the last post, I got into a debate with a pretty dogmatic libertarian some months back. Thanks to Vox, I pointed out Rothbard's change of heart on nationalism because Yugoslavia. My fellow conceded he knew of this, but that insisted that were Rothbard to rise from the dead, he would certainly recant his heresy. There is literally no arguing with (some of) these guys.

Anonymous DissidentRight May 07, 2017 7:46 AM  

Libertarianism offers easy answers. The NAP is easy to understand. Property rights are easy to understand. Individual sovereignty is easy to understand.

It is much harder to understand how a nation may have property rights and sovereignty. Who speaks for the nation? What is the nation’s will?

Too bad the easy answer is the wrong one.

Blogger Salt May 07, 2017 8:02 AM  

core libertarian ideas of the Non-Aggression Principle and the Sovereign Individual

Both of those can exist within the Nation-State so I don't see the (L) as having any corner on that market. Most Libertarians I have had the pleasure of arguing with, all have had the same bent in one specific area. Pot legalization. Once Colorado got it, I wonder how many Ls jumped ship over to the Dems?

Blogger Old Ez May 07, 2017 8:11 AM  

The ideal libertarian society existed in Europe for over 1000 years, it was called "Feudalism": A social system based entirely on free contract.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore May 07, 2017 8:15 AM  

I think I am getting this. From what I gather, libertarianism espouses the idea that we all are the same and that any person forced to negotiate a free market structure will "fall in line". This seems to be a variation of the "magic dirt" theory. This is not to say that libertarianism completely discards the notion of individual differences (i.e.. IQ) it doesn't. But what contemporary libertarianism is reluctant to explore the idea that differences may also result from race (nature), culture (nurture), as well as an interplay between those items.

This is a bitter pill to swallow if you were one of those persons vilifying Arthur Jensen and the research contained in "The Bell Curve".

Blogger Cataline Sergius May 07, 2017 8:26 AM  

Libertarianism is dying for one simple reason.

There are no Libertarian Millennials.

I suppose there are a few but they are pretty much like the Millennials who show up at Worldcon. Geeks and they are small in number.

Rightwing Millennials aren't looking for a compromise political philosophy.

Libertarianism is for Boomers and X-ers and that's it. It's an enervated dialectic for geezers...And one fat dude who runs around on stage wearing a thong.

2016 was Libertarianism only chance to go somewhere and it couldn't because it has nowhere to go.

Blogger Doom May 07, 2017 8:33 AM  

Even as a non-true libertarian, big or little "L", your final notation... irks. Oh, not saying it's wrong. Actually, if I thought you wrong, it wouldn't annoy at all. I don't want to join the club. Though that is part of why I was never truly libertarian... having to join a club to not be in the club... doesn't work.

Anyway, right. Even so, I am not seeing a club to join, one that I would trust? Trump? Mostly yes, a good bit no. Although I have finally, and easily, agreed that alt-white is far superior to alt-lite, as an ally. If that's a short term thing, realizing that the Democrat party was alt-white 1.0... know where that ends. Still, in the short and medium run, it's... better. Alt-Right? Cool. But... it's not really a club.

If I am missing something... or there is something to read that might help me muddle better... or just sage and wise words? I'm all ears. If I dissemble, just ignore me. I do that. Even when I agree, I think.

Blogger VD May 07, 2017 8:34 AM  

The ideal libertarian society existed in Europe for over 1000 years, it was called "Feudalism": A social system based entirely on free contract.

Hardly. There was nothing libertarian about legally, and involuntarily, binding serfs to the land. Your knowledge of feudal history is ludicrously lacking. Nor was there any Non-Aggression Principle or sense of individual sovereignty.

You might as reasonably have described feudalism as the ideal communist society, the statement is that far off.

Blogger Doom May 07, 2017 8:37 AM  

Hmm... there is Christianity. But to be honest, the churches, even mine, are/have failing/failed. Unless they get fixed, they... as institutions, are dead.

Blogger Some Dude May 07, 2017 8:40 AM  

Libertarianism is autism. There is no difference. It is exactly what an autistic person would believe is the best way to order human affairs.

Blogger Some Dude May 07, 2017 8:41 AM  

Notice the way most libertarians are comp programmers, engineers, actuaries or other high Q, low V professionals. Notice also their testosterone levels are below average. Its not a coincidence mon cherie.

Anonymous Viiidad May 07, 2017 9:00 AM  

Resistance is feudal.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) May 07, 2017 9:01 AM  


Libertarianism is autism. There is no difference. It is exactly what an autistic person would believe is the best way to order human affairs.


Libertarians don't believe human affairs should be ordered. That's the complete opposite of what an autistic person would do.

Blogger James Dixon May 07, 2017 9:06 AM  

> Libertarianism is autism.

Honestly, yes. I don't think it necessarily has to be, but in practice...

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 07, 2017 9:09 AM  

It would be good fun to trigger Nick to state that whopper over and over, it really is a ridiculous statement and he needs to shout it from the rooftops.

Blogger James Dixon May 07, 2017 9:14 AM  

> What libertarians need to ask themselves are these two questions:

That would require a degree of understanding of human nature that most libertarians seem incapable of achieving.

Blogger Old Ez May 07, 2017 9:16 AM  

VD Said "Nor was there any Non-Aggression Principle or sense of individual sovereignty."

Would it be fair then to say that you're arguing here (please no bully!) that in a libertarian society no individual is permitted to bargain away their sovereignty? If you're not saying that, then you need to allow for the possibility that Feudalism was much more intrinsically libertarian that you might want to admit.

For example, the idea that serfs couldn't physically leave their land if they wanted to is wrong and is just a product of Enlightenment-era political propaganda, like term "Dark Ages" itself. All social and political revolutions portray their antecedents as backwards, dark and indignifying. But who was going to stop these serfs from wandering off? Do you imagine all serfs had goalers that followed them around all day and then chained them to their beds at night? The real question a serf back then would have asked himself is, "but where does Vox expect me to go, even if I wanted to leave? Why does he imagine I would get it in my head to leave at all? The land my father and my father's father tilled? Why would I leave it?" Historically, the defining characteristic of a "serf" was not someone who was "bound" to their land, but someone who could not, except under the most narrow circumstances, be kicked off of his off his land.

On the other hand, if you are saying that under a libertarian regime no individual could bargain away his sovereignty or his prerogatives under the NAP, then I guess my question is, whence comes this great compulsory moral imperative of imposed sovereignty and at one point in time did the subjects of the libertarian regime all become subordinated, through their own individual free choice, to such a regime? Was there a vote? Did they all sign something?

I understand you're not endorsing libertarianism and just defending a definite idea of it against what you see as a false comparison to feudalism, but with that in mind and as to your defense of libertarianism in that context, even if we disagreed with the Alt Right and determined that a society in which all people were "sovereign" was somehow desirable, what would we do with the obstinate heretics who insisted on pointing out that the real, true and only sovereign in such a system is whatever or whoever imposes this moral imperative of individual sovereignty that robs the people of their freedom to aggregate together as they see fit, say, to freely pledge themselves, their land and their freedom in perpetuity to what they freely and rationally see as an objectively superior (Dark?) Lord? What right does the libertarian ideological Meta-Sovereign of imposed personal sovereignty have to deprive men of the freedom of to pledge themselves to hierarchy? -but the question was what to do with the heretic who points out the contradiction.

A little witch burning might be in order.

Blogger Lovekraft May 07, 2017 9:17 AM  

Social Justice is the 300-lb ballerina.
Libertarians are the ones who'll prop her up after she spins out of control, lands in the front row and crushed seven people.

Anonymous David-093 May 07, 2017 9:19 AM  

What libertarians fail to realize is that it's a philosophy that can only exist within a certain type of society that's populated by a certain type of people. There are prerequisites based in culture, genetics, and demographics that determine if the libertarian society can be achieved. And those prerequisites have nothing to do with the government.

Anonymous Lit Dog May 07, 2017 9:22 AM  

As most of us know (and VD has recently commented) it takes time for people to realize that their longstanding beliefs were wrong. But I think his point here about the relative unimportance of the NAP & the concept of the Sovereign Individual may be just the phrasing needed to reach those who are too stupid to realize that being called a racist is not as bad as cucking out your wife, your daughter, and your nation.

Also remember, the libertarian movement was peopled with (((cosmopolitans))) who themselves freely utilized Trotsky’s anti-White epithet to help destroy the pre-existing American nation and substitute a proposition nation which served their own racial interests.

In his later years, I think Ralph Raico came to realize this as he saw European culture being destroyed by the invasion of non-Whites. It’s a shame no one could persuade him into using those last years to tell his Ayn Rand cultural kool aid story. He, more than most, could have explained how the libertarian “universalistic” principles turned out to be nothing more than a tool to destroy White societies.

Raico and his fellow founders of libertarianism are all dead, and if we wait it out without telling our own stories of realizing the poison of universalistic philosophy, all our White societies will perish in a few generations. We will all die, of course, but if we teach the young about the universalistic kool aid, we can bequeath our nation to our own people.

Blogger haus frau May 07, 2017 9:24 AM  

The reason why pure libertarianism is and always will be a fringe philosophy is that according to the NAP, a man can have sex with a dead dog in the town square in front of a school bus full of elementary school children and that's not violating the NAP.
It kind of reminds me of my kids taunting eachother "But mom I didn't actually touch him!" While it's obvious they are purposely inciting eachother technically that statement is true.

Blogger VD May 07, 2017 9:27 AM  

For example, the idea that serfs couldn't physically leave their land if they wanted to is wrong and is just a product of Enlightenment-era political propaganda, like term "Dark Ages" itself. All social and political revolutions portray their antecedents as backwards, dark and indignifying. But who was going to stop these serfs from wandering off? Do you imagine all serfs had goalers that followed them around all day and then chained them to their beds at night? The real question a serf back then would have asked himself is, "but where does Vox expect me to go, even if I wanted to leave? Why does he imagine I would get it in my head to leave at all? The land my father and my father's father tilled? Why would I leave it?" Historically, the defining characteristic of a "serf" was not someone who was "bound" to their land, but someone who could not, except under the most narrow circumstances, be kicked off of his off his land.

No, it's not. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're far too ignorant of the medieval period, much less of the difference between feudal law in England versus France and Germany, to even begin having this discussion.

No form of contract that requires the children born to the contractee to also be subject to it can be considered "libertarian". And serfs were not permitted to abandon the land at will; when the land was sold, their contract was sold with it.

Blogger 1337kestrel May 07, 2017 9:31 AM  

I see no contradiction between libertarianism and deporting tribals and socialist peasants. The roads are owned communallly by the state. Is that ideal? No, but as long as collectively own the roads, we can vote on who gets to use them and who doesn't.

My biggest head shakes come from the anarchists-emos whose core position is "voting is a waste of time, man." They may be right about that. But I ask, if they are so anti-state, and anti-voting, and think participating in Democracy just empowers the eeevil state... then why would you want to bring in more people and let them vote? If voting is not a right, and every vote actively harms liberty, then the libertarian thing to do is to never give citizenship to foreigners or their descendants.

They want open borders because it's wrong to tell land owner A and Fruit Picker B that B can't go onto A's private property and work. But in reality, when Sex Trafficker C steps foot across the border, there's a 99% chance he's trespassing where he's not wanted. Is trespassing a universal free market principle now? A true libertarian would "deregulate" law enforcement and let the ranchers open fire.

Blogger James May 07, 2017 9:32 AM  

Just the other day a liberal told me that the answer to crime was not self defense with guns but was instead "education." When I asked her what about all the people who prove to be ineducable, she said, "education!" I'm sad to say that libertarians are much the same way as her now. When you asked them what about all the people who cannot conform to libertarian principles, they say, "NAP," or some other non-sequitur.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan May 07, 2017 9:35 AM  

As best I can tell Libertarians only scold rightward, they are useless. Why does anyone listen to them?

Blogger Troy Lee Messer May 07, 2017 9:37 AM  

I will give Reason credit with thier comment policy. U can say whatever u want. A nick vs vox debate would be cool scadenfreude.

Blogger Old Ez May 07, 2017 9:38 AM  

VD Said "No form of contract that requires the children born to the contractee to also be subject to it can be considered "libertarian". And serfs were not permitted to abandon the land at will; when the land was sold, their contract was sold with it."

I guess my point with that paragraph was that you're engaging in a bit Whiggish history by projecting certain concepts onto a period in which those concepts didn't exist, but in which, in point of fact, *the actual, practical, material conditions that existed approximate very much to what a "libertarian" society would ultimately end up looking like, if left to develop from a starting point of pure state-of-nature freedom.

I stand by that. Even if I was ignorant of the Medieval period, a person doesn't need to be familiar with the peculiarities of this or that parochial feudal system to know that given human nature, instituting a system of pure free contract where all individuals are treated as formally "equal" will relatively rapidly result in the vast majority of those individuals bargaining away their paltry "sovereignty" (which only exist as a legal fiction via formal equality) to the minority of "fit", energetic individuals.

And the question still remains: by what universally imposed moral authority do libertarians claim to be able to curtail the rights of their fellows to sell their children into slavery?

Blogger Benjamin Kraft May 07, 2017 9:43 AM  

"that serfs couldn't physically leave their land if they wanted to is wrong" Historically the defining characteristic of a "serf" was not someone who was bound to their land, but someone who could not, except under the most narrow circumstances, be kicked off of his off his land."

How about we clear up the basics. Serfs literally could not OWN land. They were essentially moved from place to place within their community, assigned land to sow and reap and give taxes from it to the person who DID own the land, and the serf was considered just as much of a commodity as the land.

They'd literally be kicked off their land and not be "given" (read: assigned) new land unless someone thought they did a decent job.

Blogger Troy Lee Messer May 07, 2017 9:44 AM  

I.e. The Rule of Law for everyone.

Blogger haus frau May 07, 2017 9:46 AM  

@32 I had a conversation with a Jewish atheist stateless society libertarian a while ago about open borders. He freely admitted that flooding the country with third world welfare consuming migrants would collapse the state and he thought it was a good thing. He believed that once the government collapsed a freer state would come out of it like modern Russia out of the Soviet union. He scoffed when I pointed out that inviting in all kinds of disparate groups of people would make the collapse far bloodier. Of course it wouldn't, he lives in one of the most Muslim neighborhoods in new York and everyone gets along fine. That's all just fear mongering about foreigners. I hope he gets his libertarian society good and hard when things go south. That conversation went a long way to turning my mind from libertarian philosophy though I still have sympathy for the ideals.

Anonymous Kudos The Lexecutioner May 07, 2017 9:58 AM  

@21 Viidad:

"Resistance is feudal."

I am Dyslexia of Borg. Your ass will be laminated.

Blogger tz May 07, 2017 9:59 AM  

Tom Woods and Bob Murphy recently (ep847, conflict of visions) and without irony agreed that man is not infinitely malleable, that we are born with some attributes that can't be changed. Sowell was arguing against the leftists.

Let me state the problem for a free society:

1.(malleable) "educate" (with cattle prods as needed) the people to understand and obey the NAP.

2.(not) Eject, deport, or otherwise eliminate those who reject the NAP from your society leaving those who accept and obey.

Most libertarians believe in no. 1. only and have a brain freeze when you say translating Rothbard and Rand into Somali won't work.

The problem with no. 2. is families, churches, and communities also play a role, so things like roads don't need complex rube-goldberg rules or games. Individuals can't do the exiling, it must be collective so no. 2 can't be implemented as libertarian, only alt-right.

You can also look at their examples of historic almost anarcho-libertarian societies. White and patriarchal. And where ostracism was nearly a death sentence.

Anonymous David-093 May 07, 2017 10:01 AM  

The problem with libtertarianism is non-libertarians get a vote too. It's not a closed system, especially if a tenet of libertarianism is Individuals, Not Borders.

Blogger Old Ez May 07, 2017 10:05 AM  

"Serfs literally could not OWN land."

This is more Whiggish history. The concept of radical "ownership" you're talking about here did not exist anywhere in Europe at the time. That kind of ownership was a product of the Enlightenment. The Lords did not "own" the land in the sense you employ the term, so your point is moot.

Roman Law, and the legal mushroom of feudalism that sprang up on its timber, had a very nuanced and very specific formalization of the concept of ownership. Possession, control and beneficiary interest could often be found lodged in the same legal personality. Legally the three were generally conveyed as a package, but in practice - conceptual, legal formalization aside - "ownership" in the Feudal period was a coordinated legal dialectic whose movements weaved the fabric of social relations. The thread was contract. It might not be a form of contract that ideological modernists and Whiggish historians recognize as legitimate, but the people at the time did.

The Whiggishly inclined defender of libertarianism wants to impose a conception of ownership on the Feudal period that is completely lacking the necessary component of "responsibility". To a libertarian, "freedom" and "ownership" fundamentally mean irresponsibility with regard to the res. If one has a responsibility with regard to it, either he is not free or he does not radically "own" the res. The feudal legal conception of "ownership" is entirely bound up with responsibility. One cannot exercise complete dominium without executing fiduciary function.

The point of all this legal tedium is just to point out again that the libertarian defending against the charge of crypto-feudalism is basing his case on a conceptual slight of hand where he is comparing two periods using solely conceptual criteria, and moreover criteria only applicable to one of the periods, instead of looking at the material conditions themselves, which actually bear out much of the libertarian paradigm.

Anonymous Looking Glass May 07, 2017 10:05 AM  

@40 Kudos The Lexecutioner

"I am Dyslexia of Borg. Your ass will be laminated."

HAHA. I'm going to keep that one for later use.

Anonymous Looking Glass May 07, 2017 10:08 AM  

@42 David-093

It's Utopian. All modern political religions are. Thus, they all fail.

Blogger ZhukovG May 07, 2017 10:10 AM  

The Marxist seeks the 'withering of the State' through creation of the 'New Soviet Man'.

The Libertarian seeks the 'withering of the State', but argues that man is just fine the way he is.

In fact Nationalism is the only way to reduce the State. When a people are genetically and culturally in harmony they require few laws to govern their behavior.

Blogger Dave Narby May 07, 2017 10:12 AM  

I find it hilarious that a bunch of non-libertarians opine about libertarianism, given their ignorance and lack of association with them.

I live in a naturally high-density libertarian-leaning state, New Hampshire. The people here are naturally 'live and let live'.

I associate with natives and a lot of "Free-Staters" (Free State Project). The vast majority of my interactions are with small and big "L" libertarians, "AnCaps", minarchists, propertarians, Rothbardians, Christian conservatives, etc.

NOBODY I associate with ever talks about Reason magazine or Gillespie. It is never referenced in social media. Nobody cares about it. Holding it up as some sort of definition of libertarianism is a red herring.

To answer Vox's questions:

"One, is my ideal of maximizing liberty in my society, the human society in which I actually live, presently dependent upon the core libertarian ideas of the Non-Aggression Principle? and the Sovereign Individual?"

Yes. Because the NAP is based on the principle that *the only legitimate role of government is to protect property, and everything, including people, is property*. If someone doesn't agree with this, I associate with them as little as possible. Usually it's because they are a crypto-leftist or an authoritarian. Commerce is much easier to conduct with people who recognize and adhere to this principle, and my standard of living is much better as a result.

As far as "sovereign individual" is concerned, again: Nobody I know uses that term in discussing politics or political theory. It's ridiculous. Only monarchs and nations are sovereign, and those who are literate on this choose the title of man or woman, as that is the highest rank on Earth next to God.


"And, two, at this particular moment in history, do those core libertarian dogmas tend to expand or to reduce human liberty in my society?"

They do in my neighborhood, my side of the city, my county, and my state. The further people get from me, the less of my problem it is. I have been encouraging people for decades: If you don't like your neighbors? Find a community you identify with and move. You'll be a lot happier.


My understanding is that Vox's wants to avoid the Balkanization of America. That is a lost cause, partly because America was constructed to be Balkanized at it's inception, but mostly it's because of human nature. Forced integration always fails, and until it does it is a recipe for misery. I suggest you all get over it and front-run it.

Trust me, it's better this way. I have never been happier.

Anonymous VFM #6306 May 07, 2017 10:12 AM  

Old Ez, "Libertarianism would probably degenerate into feudalism" is NOT the same thing as "Feudalism is the ideal expression of Libertarianism."

For one thing, family was an intrinsic unit of the feudal system. The family is - at best - a non-factor in Libertarianism. At worst, it is an institution to be broken, either by free trade or individual sovereignity.

The runaway serf would also be violating the Libertarian principle of mutual contracts.

There is nothing feudalism has to do with Libertarianism.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore May 07, 2017 10:12 AM  

Thought you dudes might like this article. I'm thinking of crafting a drinking game around it in which a drink is taken every time you come across a Neo-Conservative concept. I predict that I'll be completely hammered by the time I finish the first third of the article.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/what-makes-america-great/article/2007818#!

Blogger Old Ez May 07, 2017 10:15 AM  

"Libertarianism would probably degenerate into feudalism" is NOT the same thing as "Feudalism is the ideal expression of Libertarianism."

Absolutely granted. I didn't mean to imply feudalism was the ideal of libertarianism, only that it was the closest approximation that has existed.

"For one thing, family was an intrinsic unit of the feudal system. The family is - at best - a non-factor in Libertarianism. At worst, it is an institution to be broken, either by free trade or individual sovereignity.

The runaway serf would also be violating the Libertarian principle of mutual contracts."

Bingo. You just made my argument for me, especially with regard to Whiggish narratives and differing legal conceptions.

"There is nothing feudalism has to do with Libertarianism."

Well that's just ex-cathedra.

Blogger NO GOOGLES May 07, 2017 10:15 AM  

@47
I'm going to need to check both you and Gillespie's "True Scotsman" ID cards.

Blogger Salt May 07, 2017 10:17 AM  

VFM #6306 wrote:For one thing, family was an intrinsic unit of the feudal system. The family is - at best - a non-factor in Libertarianism. At worst, it is an institution to be broken, either by free trade or individual sovereignity.



A serf could not raise an army. That was the prerogative of the feudal Lord. Under Libertarianism's individual sovereignty principle, a person is free to do so or to contract to join an army.

Anonymous VFM #6306 May 07, 2017 10:21 AM  

Dave Narby, don't be a fool. Liberals follow your prescription all the time, as has Vox and many of the commenters.

Living and trading with who you like isn't an expression of Libertarianism.

If you would be opposed to your neighborhood being flooded by communists, you are no longer a Libertarian. It is as simple as that.

Blogger Timmy3 May 07, 2017 10:25 AM  

I never thought Reason was libertarian. Only reason to visit the site was when Instapundit or other conservative sites linked to it on occasion when it served conservative positions. It didn't seem particularly conservative. It made sense sometimes.

Blogger Dave Narby May 07, 2017 10:27 AM  

Cataline Sergius wrote:Libertarianism is dying for one simple reason.

There are no Libertarian Millennials.


False. There's plenty of them where I live.

Blogger Old Ez May 07, 2017 10:28 AM  

"A serf could not raise an army. That was the prerogative of the feudal Lord. Under Libertarianism's individual sovereignty principle, a person is free to do so or to contract to join an army."

But would you agree that under Libertarianism's individual sovereignty principle, an individual is completely within his rights to enter into a contact that forbids him from independently raising an army?

If not, then I submit that the Libertarianism's individual sovereignty principle is a sham.

Anonymous BBGKB May 07, 2017 10:30 AM  

The Zman had me at "The First Thing We Do, Let’s Kill All The Libertarians".

We might not have to if they keep doing "Hola amigos let me tell you of the wonders of small government as Hayek said..." https://gab.ai/BGKB/posts/7568291

negotiate a free market structure will "fall in line". This seems to be a variation of the "magic dirt" theory.

Actually one of the best ways to sum up libertarians is in a 4min video from Walt Bismark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcUZrDX5P7A

Not just magic dirt but it assumes that everyone will simply not commit a crime out of the goodness of their heart & no cronyism/nepotism/ price fixing would exist. Anyone who has spiked their own packed lunch to see who stole it knows better.

Libertarians also believe people have sex at graveyards at night harms no one.

it was called "Feudalism": A social system based entirely on free contract.

Serfs paid less taxes than some of us do today but they could not easily vote with their feet.

. But who was going to stop these serfs from wandering off?

The inability to carry 6+ months worth of food for your family. Libertarian "my serfs are free to swim away across my shark filled moat"

Jewish atheist stateless society libertarian...flooding the country with third world welfare consuming migrants would collapse the state and he thought it was a good thing. He believed that once the government collapsed a freer state

Know that his last words to the cannibal biker rape gang will be "Hola amigos let me tell you of the wonders of small government as Hayek said"


47. Blogger Dave Narby

High I live in one of the whitest states in the US that is so cold its almost the opposite of what black people evolved in. I will also pretend that army studies showing blacks have 8x the cold injuries given the exact same conditions/gear/cloths would make my state less desirable. So let me tell you, all you have to do is move to a Whitopia that has not had section 8 housing complexes squatted onto it like this nice little town called Ferguson10YearsAgo

Blogger Old Ez May 07, 2017 10:32 AM  

The question I'm posing over and over is, "Can libertarianism prevent the possible rise of feudalism while at the same time remaining true to its own principles?"

It's fundamentally the same question as, "Can democracy prevent the possible rise of totalitarianism while at the same time remaining true to its own principles?"

The answer in both cases is no. And all that means is that both systems contain some element of self-deception.

Blogger Dave Narby May 07, 2017 10:38 AM  

VFM #6306 wrote:Dave Narby, don't be a fool. Liberals follow your prescription all the time, as has Vox and many of the commenters.

Living and trading with who you like isn't an expression of Libertarianism.

If you would be opposed to your neighborhood being flooded by communists, you are no longer a Libertarian. It is as simple as that.


"VFM #6306" (Use your real name, don't be a pussy), you are woefully ignorant. Read Hans Herman Hoppe regarding covenant communities. Trust me, a communist invasion in my community would be... Hilarious.

It's also pretty hilarious that most here seem go to Vox to get their definitions of what libertarian is. It's vaguely analogous to asking a Jew for Jesus who converted to pre-Vatican II Catholicism about Judaism.

Anonymous VFM #6306 May 07, 2017 10:40 AM  

But would you agree that under Libertarianism's individual sovereignty principle, an individual is completely within his rights to enter into a contact that forbids him from independently raising an army?

Of course he would be able to do that. He couldn't do it for his kids and wife, though. And he wouldn't be a terribly bright Libertarian. He could also, under Libertarianism, sell him self as compost proor to his suicide.

I think these both would be little used avenues in the common Libertarian's life map.

Anonymous VFM #6306 May 07, 2017 10:46 AM  

Dave Narby, congratulations on establishing your impregnable freewheeling Fortress in Hoppestan.

But you might be realizing that your clan of like-minded border defenders are not Libertarian in the slightest.

It is Alt-Right.

Blogger Salt May 07, 2017 10:47 AM  

If feudalism as you stated @13 was "The ideal libertarian society existed in Europe for over 1000 years, it was called "Feudalism": A social system based entirely on free contract", which you further defend, then why should Libertarianism oppose it, being the ideal system?

Blogger Dave Narby May 07, 2017 10:50 AM  

VFM #6306 wrote:Dave Narby, congratulations on establishing your impregnable freewheeling Fortress in Hoppestan.

But you might be realizing that your clan of like-minded border defenders are not Libertarian in the slightest.

It is Alt-Right.


You say poe-tate-oe, I say poh-tat-oh...

Nah, f*ck that. I'm a libertarian. You're Alt-Right. Just stick to your side of the property line, we'll get along fine. Hell, we might even find ourselves at the same gun club, town board meeting and ice-cream social.

Blogger James May 07, 2017 10:53 AM  

Liberty and freedom cannot mean "anything goes." "Anything goes" means, in reality, chaos and confusion and degeneracy and entropy and dust and death. "Anything goes" means nothing goes. And we should not kid ourselves here about what is truly going on: The scum bags who push the idea that libertarian means "anything goes" do not really mean it, but instead are surreptitiously and stealthily working to destroy Western Civilization while pretending to support it.

Blogger bosscauser May 07, 2017 10:55 AM  

Libertarianism is an exercise in futility by people with too much time on their hands!
The common herd loves being bossed around.
The do vote for it you know!

Gab.ai/GaryCauser

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 07, 2017 10:56 AM  

Dave Narby lives in a state full of white people, thinks libertarianism is great, doesn't understand why it doesn't work...looks great where he is.

Dave, what would happen to your Libertarian paradise if half of Beijing took you up on your free movement of people idea?

Blogger Dave Narby May 07, 2017 10:57 AM  

BBGKB wrote:

47. Blogger Dave Narby

High I live in one of the whitest states in the US that is so cold its almost the opposite of what black people evolved in. I will also pretend that army studies showing blacks have 8x the cold injuries given the exact same conditions/gear/cloths would make my state less desirable. So let me tell you, all you have to do is move to a Whitopia that has not had section 8 housing complexes squatted onto it like this nice little town called Ferguson10YearsAgo


Jealous much?

This will help: https://www.uhaul.com/

Blogger Dave Narby May 07, 2017 11:02 AM  

Stg58/Animal Mother wrote:Dave Narby lives in a state full of white people, thinks libertarianism is great, doesn't understand why it doesn't work...looks great where he is.

Dave, what would happen to your Libertarian paradise if half of Beijing took you up on your free movement of people idea?


You are woefully ignorant of libertarianism.

Open borders isn't a a libertarian principle. Property rights are. Borders fall under property rights.

In fact, many (I suspect now a majority) are for managed borders, and some of us (like myself) would manage the borders to reverse the effects of the 1965 "Destroy America through turd world immigration" act.

Reserve yours now: https://www.uhaul.com/

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 07, 2017 11:04 AM  

Dave, I didn't say open borders. I said free movement of people. Are you saying free movement of people isn't a libertarian principle?

Anonymous VFM #6306 May 07, 2017 11:04 AM  

I'm a libertarian. You're Alt-Right. Just stick to your side of the property line, we'll get along fine.

...a Libertarian whose community would successfully crush the free movement of communists and the purchase of property by communists.

Dude, that might be sane...but what it isn't is Libertarian.

Blogger Dave Narby May 07, 2017 11:08 AM  

James wrote:Liberty and freedom cannot mean "anything goes." "Anything goes" means, in reality, chaos and confusion and degeneracy and entropy and dust and death. "Anything goes" means nothing goes. And we should not kid ourselves here about what is truly going on: The scum bags who push the idea that libertarian means "anything goes" do not really mean it, but instead are surreptitiously and stealthily working to destroy Western Civilization while pretending to support it.

This^

Many of them are crypto-leftists, and some I suspect are even crypto-nihilists. Leftists (I believe more accurately, "r" strategists) try to insert themselves everywhere.

I've noticed a lot of these types have disappeared from my 'hood over the last few years. They evidently didn't find the climate clement. Progress!

Blogger Old Ez May 07, 2017 11:09 AM  

"He couldn't do it for his kids and wife, though"

So the state would imprison or kill him if he tried?

Who, in that case, would be responsible for taking care of the wife and the child? The state? [smug pepe] In any case, whoever was going to take care of them, what kind of semblence of "rights" would remain to the wife and children under that scenario - including if they were simply turned out to fend for themselves? Isn't jailing or killing the father just as likely, or more, to result in "harm" to the wife and child as pledging their labor to a third party? And isn't the whole point of preventing such pledges to prevent "harm"? I guess it all boils down to what "harm" means.

And that's the crux of the problem: libertarianism, like all systems that masquerade as fundamentally economic or political, is a moral system, which is why it is self-contradictory. It claims to leave the realm of morality completely to the individual but in practice it rigorously enforces its own morality at the point of a sword, *without regard to any practical "harm" it may cause* in pursuit of its ideologically-based conception of justice. So a man can either sell his wife and child's labor, or watch them starve to death. Libertarianism says that the first option would formally and legally "harm" the wife and children, therefore it is morally wrong. It has absolutely nothing to say about second option; it is morally neither here nor there.

Why is the libertarian conception of justice any more entitled, *by its own standards of individual free choice*, to define "harm" as "impaired contracting ability" than, say, a system that would define "harm" has "going hungry"?

In contract-based societies, he who defines e.g., "harm" is Sovereign, and no one else. People living in libertarian societies are *not free* to define "harm" as they see fit.

@62 - yeah, that was sloppy mixing of rhetoric and dialectic on my part. I shouldn't have said feudalism was the "ideal" system, just that it was the closes practical approximation.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 07, 2017 11:12 AM  

Old Ez,

If I read all of your rants will I get college credit?

Blogger Erynne May 07, 2017 11:13 AM  

My favorite libertarian book is still 'The Libertarian Manifesto' by Rothbard. I liked a lot of his ideas there and the examples he gave were very good, but also affirmed the idea that only a specific type of people would ever be able to uphold the ideals of the manifesto. For example, the way Mormons dole out their own welfare is far superior to the way the Federal gov't does it, but that's because they're Mormons, I doubt others would accomplish the same thing.

Also, when I read De Tocqueville's impression of early America, I recognize that we are no longer that people he saw. There is no critical mass of libertarian minded folk, even traditional small-gov't conservatives are cucks, churches are cucked, and our culture is dominated by the left.

I think libertarianism is irrelevant. People are now fully in favor of gov't, and more gov't, no matter how loudly they cry against it at times.
If Zuckerberg were libertarian, maybe it'd be relevant. Or, if other super wealthy entrepreneurs were hardcore libertarian and not afraid to bend the ears of politicians. I can't see it happening, but I think this is why Alt-Tech will be an interesting development. Remove the old platforms by building new ones, Fox News the hell out of them. Breitbart has done more in one year than any number of years of libertarian outreach.

Blogger Salt May 07, 2017 11:18 AM  

Old Ez wrote:@62 - yeah, that was sloppy mixing of rhetoric and dialectic on my part. I shouldn't have said feudalism was the "ideal" system, just that it was the closes practical approximation.

Still leaves the question.

The question I'm posing over and over is, "Can libertarianism prevent the possible rise of feudalism while at the same time remaining true to its own principles?"

Why prevent what is the closest practical approximation? Libertarians should applaud it, till the boot of the feudal Lord descends upon their necks.

Blogger Dave Narby May 07, 2017 11:18 AM  

Stg58/Animal Mother wrote:Dave, I didn't say open borders. I said free movement of people. Are you saying free movement of people isn't a libertarian principle?

Everything is permitted as long is it doesn't involve injury or trespass of property, so yes.

However, crossing a border without permission is trespass.

(Yes, it's a discrimination trap! Heheheh...)

I think the problem is that converged "libertarian" outlets (e.g. Reason) have been promoting open borders. I am not aware of any surveys (let alone any well conducted surveys), but I suspect the majority of libertarians aren't for open borders (many have never been).

Blogger James May 07, 2017 11:19 AM  

"It's also pretty hilarious that most here seem go to Vox to get their definitions of what libertarian is. It's vaguely analogous to asking a Jew for Jesus who converted to pre-Vatican II Catholicism about Judaism. "
C'mon, Narby. This here statement of your is just plain stupid. There is such a thing as objective definition and analysis. You need to make your case specifically regarding what it is about Vox's definition of libertarianism that you disagree with, and why. Otherwise you're just flossin'. You do realize, don't you, that there are Christians who know about Judaism than the average Jew? And there are Jews running around that know more about Christianity than the typical Christian?

Blogger Old Ez May 07, 2017 11:21 AM  

@73 No. For that you must organize my cassette collection by label and catalog number and you can't use dicogs.

Blogger Salt May 07, 2017 11:22 AM  

Dave Narby wrote:However, crossing a border without permission is trespass.



He's dancing. Wonderful.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 07, 2017 11:24 AM  

Dave,

You're a little weasel.

"Everything is permitted as long as it doesn't involve injury or trespass."

"However crossing a border is trespass."

Which border? If free movement of people isn't a Libertarian concept, why has almost every Libertarian I've ever met or talked to talk nonstop about it?

Blogger Dave Narby May 07, 2017 11:24 AM  

VFM #6306 wrote:I'm a libertarian. You're Alt-Right. Just stick to your side of the property line, we'll get along fine.

...a Libertarian whose community would successfully crush the free movement of communists and the purchase of property by communists.

Dude, that might be sane...but what it isn't is Libertarian.


First off, commies can't buy property.

Seriously though, as a practical matter, no commie would want to move here. Commies are r-strategists, they move to low-competition, easy resource areas.

If they did come, it would be an invasion, in which case go watch Red Dawn (the original, naturally).

Blogger Robert What? May 07, 2017 11:25 AM  

Libertarianism can only exist in small, homogeneous, White nation states. That counts out the United States as it currently exists.

Blogger Dave Narby May 07, 2017 11:29 AM  

Stg58/Animal Mother wrote:Dave,

You're a little weasel.

"Everything is permitted as long as it doesn't involve injury or trespass."

"However crossing a border is trespass."

Which border? If free movement of people isn't a Libertarian concept, why has almost every Libertarian I've ever met or talked to talk nonstop about it?



Any border.

If you would like to meet a bunch of libertarians that agree with that, come on up to New Hampshire, I'll introduce you.

I'll also introduce you to the fact that the wolverine is a member of the weasel family, if you desire.

Anonymous BBGKB May 07, 2017 11:31 AM  

Jealous much?This will help

If you have been around for a while you would know I am a faggot who fled DieVerse City for Whitopia after the food stamp system went down for 8hours in 16 states on 10-12-2013. Next you will tell me about fruit/nut tree guilds & swales.

BGKB stands for BigGayKoranBurner, I usually only put the whole thing if its relevant like a post about Rosie O'Donnell proving lesbians beat everyone out per capita on domestic violence.

Blogger Dave Narby May 07, 2017 11:32 AM  

Stg58/Animal Mother wrote:Dave,

You're a little weasel.

"Everything is permitted as long as it doesn't involve injury or trespass."

"However crossing a border is trespass."

Which border? If free movement of people isn't a Libertarian concept, why has almost every Libertarian I've ever met or talked to talk nonstop about it?



Also, I didn't write that.

I wrote "However, crossing a border without permission is trespass."

Be honest, if you can.

Blogger Old Ez May 07, 2017 11:34 AM  

"Libertarianism can only exist in small, homogeneous, White nation states."

And even then its foundations need re-visioning. As long as a libertarian system does not explicitly affirm its moral foundations (as such), it will always be prey to a clandestine moral sovereign being smuggled in through the back door.

If an individual ever tells you he has no religion, no ideology or no world-view, you know you're dealing with someone who does not understand the foundations of his own thought. Show me a man without a religion, ideology or world-view and I'll show you a beast walking on two legs.

Blogger Felix Bellator May 07, 2017 11:34 AM  

In New Hampshire the train is fine.

Blogger James Dixon May 07, 2017 11:35 AM  

> NOBODY I associate with ever talks about Reason magazine or Gillespie. It is never referenced in social media. Nobody cares about it. Holding it up as some sort of definition of libertarianism is a red herring.

You and your associates illiteracy does not engender faith in your arguments.

> Yes. Because the NAP is based on the principle that *the only legitimate role of government is to protect property, and everything, including people, is property*.

No, it isn't. The NAP concept can exist without government entering the equation at all.

> As far as "sovereign individual" is concerned, again: Nobody I know uses that term in discussing politics or political theory.

See my first comment above.

Blogger Dave Narby May 07, 2017 11:43 AM  

James wrote:"It's also pretty hilarious that most here seem go to Vox to get their definitions of what libertarian is. It's vaguely analogous to asking a Jew for Jesus who converted to pre-Vatican II Catholicism about Judaism. "

C'mon, Narby. This here statement of your is just plain stupid. There is such a thing as objective definition and analysis. You need to make your case specifically regarding what it is about Vox's definition of libertarianism that you disagree with, and why. Otherwise you're just flossin'. You do realize, don't you, that there are Christians who know about Judaism than the average Jew? And there are Jews running around that know more about Christianity than the typical Christian?


Who you gonna ask first about Catholicism, a Jew? Or a Catholic?

So why you wanna ask an Alt-Righter about libertarianism?

Vox and I disagree on this. Fine. That doesn't make him right. But it also doesn't matter if I'm right.

Personally, I think it was a mistake to piss in the libertarian's orange juice, as it won't win him any converts, and in my case it made me less amenable. Some will write him off as a result. Which of course, nobody here cares about, and guess what? The feeling's mutual.

But remember: Win the battle, lose the war.

You animals are 'charming', but I have to go to work and earn some shekels for the man. Toodle-loo!

https://www.uhaul.com/

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 07, 2017 11:44 AM  

Well Dave I mistyped your statement, but get those small victories while you can, by all means.

Blogger James Dixon May 07, 2017 11:44 AM  

Some Dude says: "Libertarianism is autism."

Not content to merely allow others to agree or disagree, Dave Narby insists on demonstrating the point to all and sundry.

Blogger frigger611 May 07, 2017 11:45 AM  

This thread reminds me of the never ending, years-long feud between the libertarians who favored Rand and those who favored Rothbard.

Then again it also reminds me of that scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail where King Arthur came upon the "constitutional peasants" mucking around in the filth while arguing over the best way to order society.
It of course ended with the hurling of insults and loud protests of " come see the violence inherent in the system!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2c-X8HiBng

Anonymous Kudos The Lexecutioner May 07, 2017 11:56 AM  

First, to establish my (former) libertarian cred:

1. started reading REASON magazine in the 1970s (yes, back in the Pleistocene era of politics, and it was THE source of libertarian commentary), and I had YEARS' worth of back issues filed away in my library.
2. own a copy of Rothbard's 2-volume "Man, Economy & State" and have actually read it.
3. voted John Hospers for President in 1972
4. served on the Executive Committee of a state Libertarian Party for several years.
5. campaigned for Andre Marrou, David Bergland, and Ron Paul (as an LP candidate)

I know the territory pretty well.

I left libertarianism (both small "l" and large "L") when I realized that the problem with libertarianism was that it was so full of libertines. When the Libertarian Party devolved into an echo chamber debating society fixated on pot and bad foreign policy, I was done with it.

The only Michael Medved comment I've ever agreed with: calling the Libertarian Party the "Losertarians." I saw them up close and personal, and believe me, truer words were never spoken.

@47 Dave Narby

"NOBODY I associate with ever talks about Reason magazine or Gillespie. It is never referenced in social media. Nobody cares about it. Holding it up as some sort of definition of libertarianism is a red herring."

Maybe you and your True Libertarian(TM) friends don't think REASON has anything to do with libertarianism. I submit that you don't know what you're talking about.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 07, 2017 11:58 AM  

But Dave, if a property owner along a national border wants to allow foreigners to freely cross his land or set up camp on it, how can his neighbors (or the government) legitimately stop him? That would be a blatant violation of the NAP.

Blogger Lovekraft May 07, 2017 11:59 AM  

The societal infection call CRITICAL THEORY poisoned minds. Language continues to suffer.

Take the word 'slavery' that has been reduced to political pointscoring but one should ask the average black "would you agree to working in conditions similar to cotton picking (without illegal conduct by employers) if it meant a chance to raise yourself up and start a family etc?"

Sensible question that is verboten because blacks have been under the yoke by new slave owners that are using them for The Racket.

My point is that libertarianism will not work when significant portions of the population are like leashed dogs ready to attack at their masters' bidding. Try keeping the peace through small government with this reality. Constant vigilance.

So until we establish the ground rules, keeping ethnic numbers stable, the dance continues and my bet is the alt-right presents a clearer path to getting there.

Blogger praetorian May 07, 2017 11:59 AM  

White people are precious. Again and a gain, a jew writes down some words in a book, and off our talented tenth goes, eyes ablaze.

Anonymous Brick Hardslab May 07, 2017 12:09 PM  

Old Ez, do you work in education or climate modeling? Because you don't know your facts and don't care. You keep trying to shoehorn facts to fit your false theory.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 07, 2017 12:10 PM  

Dave Narby wrote:Seriously though, as a practical matter, no commie would want to move here. Commies are r-strategists, they move to low-competition, easy resource areas.

If they did come, it would be an invasion, in which case go watch Red Dawn (the original, naturally).

They will move in because one of your oh so libertarian neighbors will sell out to them. Because one of the central tenets of Libertarianism is "who cares about my neighbors, my town and my posterity, I can make a buck." So when the State gives your neighbor half again the property value so they can settle some Somali refugees in your town, he'll take the money and move to Florida.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener May 07, 2017 12:11 PM  

The Libertarian will sell the commies the rope with which they hang him.

Blogger ZhukovG May 07, 2017 12:12 PM  

One issue with Libertarianism is that even Libertarians can't agree on what it is. They talk about NAP and individual sovereignty(liberty) but the actual application is widely disagreed upon.

I am fine with NAP and Individual Liberty, but I believe they can only achieve their realistic potential under Nationalism.

Anonymous Kudos The Lexecutioner May 07, 2017 12:17 PM  

"I want gay married couples to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns!"

That pretty much says it all for the modern Libertarian Party.

See, e.g., http://ipolitics.ca/2014/03/06/a-libertarian-answer-in-fort-mac-freedom-for-guns-gays-and-pot/

Anonymous Bellator Mortalis May 07, 2017 12:19 PM  

I suspect a big part of the problem is that many who claim to espouse libertarianism are not libertarians at all. From Infogalactic we see: https://infogalactic.com/info/Libertarianism

"Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy, emphasizing freedom of choice, voluntary association, individual judgment, and self-ownership." I don't see anything opposed to the alt-right in that statement.

However when reading down the page there are plenty of oddities grouped under libertarianism including: anarchists, anarcho-capitalists, libertarian Marxists, council Communists, Luxemburgists, and DeLeonists. I assert none of those are libertarian. Seems like they have just appropriated the word. Kind of like how "social justice warriors" are neither just nor are they warriors.

So -- do you want freedom of choice? Do you want voluntary association (which includes the freedom to NOT be forced to associate with those whom you don't want to associate)? Do you want individual judgment (that is, to reject the limitations imposed by SJWs e.g. free to be sexist, racist, and culturally appropriate whatever the hell you want)? Do you want self-ownership (and therefore not to be owned by others either individuals or groups)?

The core of libertarianism seems pretty reasonable to me. The rest of the crap hanging off of it is just that -- crap -- and should be ignored.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 07, 2017 12:23 PM  

Noah B The Savage Gardener wrote:But Dave, if a property owner along a national border wants to allow foreigners to freely cross his land or set up camp on it, how can his neighbors (or the government) legitimately stop him? That would be a blatant violation of the NAP.
You have to understand, Libertarianism is whatever Dave believes. It has nothing to do with what anybody wrote about it, or the application of specific principles. Border control is libertarian because Dave believes in border control. Although I note he consistently calls it "border management" rather than border control, which implies he means something different.
Anyway, we must understand that Dave is the true measure of Libertarianism. What he believes is Libertarianism, and anything he doesn't believe is not Libertarianism. Waht he reads is Libertarian Literature, because he reads it. What he doesn't read cannot be Libertarian literature, because Dave doesn't read it.

One question, Dave;
Who would you trust as an authority on Catholicism, a priestess of the Inclusive Catholic Church, or a Lutheran theologian who used to be a Catholic?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 07, 2017 12:28 PM  

Bellator Mortalis wrote:The core of libertarianism seems pretty reasonable to me. The rest of the crap hanging off of it is just that -- crap -- and should be ignored.
And that's what we have been arguing about, the core of Libertarianism, The Non-Agression Pinciple and the Sovereign Individual.
Both are nonsensical, self-contradicting, and would lead amazingly quickly to slavery and (as old ez notes above) feudalism.

I have to say the whole idea of self-ownership is completely stupid. Persons are not owned, even by themselves. It is a category error to treat your self as property.

Blogger James May 07, 2017 12:29 PM  

Narby, I said what I said as a former libertarian. I cast my first vote for President for Ed Clark in 1980, when I could have voted for Ronald Reagan. I was a big fan of Reagan, I liked the way the firehosed the degenerate scumbag rioters at the universities, but when it came down to it I voted for what I thought was principle. I don't know if I would change the past if I could, all I know now is that libertarianism is inadequate for my intellectual and political and spiritual needs. I don't need Vox to tell me what libertarianism is because I already have my own ideas about it from the inside.

Blogger dc.sunsets May 07, 2017 12:39 PM  

Josh, claiming that libertarians don't want order is the stupidest comment here.

Pure philosophical libertarianism posits order entirely produced by markets. There's a reason one of the bibles for libertarianism is The Market for Liberty.

I find this debate fascinating both in the constant mis-definition of libertarianism (including among self-described libertarians) and the incorrect attribution of its failures.

1. Clannish people (the majority of the world) would not accept the "rules" and
2. People are not Star Trek Vulcans and are driven by cognitive processes occurring prior to reason & logic.

Both of these insure that a "stable, permanent" market order would last 5 seconds before people began forming up into the very factions we see in human social behavior every single place we look.

This is human psychology 101, evident 100% of the time. Libertarianism doesn’t fail on economic or philosophical grounds, it (like socialism) fails first by being fundamentally incompatible with human nature (which is paradoxical because its whole program is based on better aligning social structure with human nature.)

All ideology posits one best way to permanently structure society. A biological axiom is that stasis = death. All living things exhibit dynamism.

Humanity is thus certain to move up and down various individual spectrums of organization as time passes and fads come and go.

Eden is not Earth's destination.

Blogger ((( bob kek mando ))) - ( don't trifle with me, son. i'm a professional, certified 4th degree black belt in the ancient Hebrew martial art of Kibitz Maga ) May 07, 2017 12:42 PM  

Reason Magazine is the National Review of Libertarianism

because

Nick Gillespie is the Libertarian version of William Buckley's retarded red headed step-child


54. Timmy3 May 07, 2017 10:25 AM
I never thought Reason was libertarian.


telling us you're ignorant is not usually a good way to start laying out your position.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Reason_%28magazine%29

http://reason.org/about/faq/
» Is Reason libertarian?

Yes. Reason Foundation's mission is to advance a free society by developing, applying, and promoting libertarian principles, including individual liberty, free markets, and the rule of law.

Blogger James Dixon May 07, 2017 12:44 PM  

> But Dave, if a property owner along a national border wants to allow foreigners to freely cross his land or set up camp on it, how can his neighbors (or the government) legitimately stop him? That would be a blatant violation of the NAP.

Especially if he charges them a "reasonable fee" for doing so.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 07, 2017 12:44 PM  

In the Libertarian Future, the wanted posters won't say "Runaway Slave", they'll say "Contract Breaker".

Blogger Old Ez May 07, 2017 12:45 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger VD May 07, 2017 12:47 PM  

So why you wanna ask an Alt-Righter about libertarianism?

Probably because I am a former libertarian, and a much better known libertarian than you. I always voted Libertarian dating back to 1992 - and I was out of the country in 1988 so I didn't vote. This site was considered one of the top 100 libertarian sites on the Internet as recently as 2014.

Open borders isn't a a libertarian principle. Property rights are. Borders fall under property rights.

You are wrong. The free movement of peoples is a libertarian policy, as I already proved to you yesterday. Moreover, libertarians don't believe the State has any property rights. Therefore, some borders will fall under property rights whereas others will not. And finally, no one can prevent the property owner from permitting migration onto and through his property.

Dave, you simply don't have a coherent case consistent with libertarian principles. There are plenty of ex-libertarians here. We know your arguments better than you do.

Blogger Cail Corishev May 07, 2017 12:59 PM  

@47 I find it hilarious that

This was a tell and a half, considering everything that has followed it.

Anonymous Kevin May 07, 2017 1:08 PM  

Richard Epstein is a libertarian and genius. He has frequently commented, mostly an aside, that open borders is the stupidest idea ever and no society has ever even imagined much less implemented such a dumb idea.

What convinced me that the libertarian position was foolhardy was the failure to successfully convert a significant part of their own population and at the same time be proposing bringing in people who shared no western traditions and may actively oppose freedom. Things most people here figured out before me. This paradox is the death of the libertarian ideal because it assumes there is no such thing as culture and certainly no genetics.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother May 07, 2017 1:34 PM  

Kevin,

Absolutely! This is the problem with Libertarian thought. It ignores culture and genetics.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 07, 2017 1:42 PM  

Stg58/Animal Mother wrote:This is the problem with Libertarian thought. It ignores culture and genetics.
And history, and human nature, and every single interaction a Libertarian has had with another real person, and even the information that would be revealed by an honest self-examination.

Blogger Were-Puppy May 07, 2017 2:08 PM  

@39 haus frau

Of course it wouldn't, he lives in one of the most Muslim neighborhoods in new York and everyone gets along fine.
---

You've discovered the secret brotherhood. I keep running across it reading historical books. The Jews and Muslims love to tag team against the West.

Anonymous Anonymous May 07, 2017 2:16 PM  

What the alt-right should ask itself is "is my goal of having a 'white society' better served by:

a) working with "right" libertarians (at least in the USA) on eliminating welfare, pubic education, free medical, free food, and free housing for those unable or unwilling to contribute to society

or
b) by attacking them for not being pure anarchists or on the grounds that anarchy doesn't really work in practice...NEWS FLASH - "Alt-right" has never worked in practice.


Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 07, 2017 2:38 PM  

@Anony,
1) Get a name.
2) There are no Libertarians on the Right. Libertarianism is itself, a Leftist Utopian ideology that preaches that man will be fundamentally remade if only the correct set of laws is in place.
3) Libertarians are safely ignored. They are useless allies and treacherous teammates. The are also toothless opponents.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft May 07, 2017 2:54 PM  

@117. Last I checked, Libertarians were talking to me more about legalizing all kinds of drugs, and didn't say a peep about eliminating any of those things. What the are you talking about?

As to your b)... do you realize how ridiculous and batsh insane your assertions, assumptions and implications are? You know what, never mind, let's do this the easy way. Direct question: Do you EVER communicate ANYTHING that isn't composed of layers of lies, false implications, logical absurdities and straw men?

Blogger Kevin Blackwell May 07, 2017 3:01 PM  

I am no libertarian, but I checked out of Reason on youtube when they released a video on what to do when a mentally disturbed man in drag uses a women's restroom. As far as I'm concerned libertarians are worse than conservatives. They hold a position on government spending but everything else they will go on the dark ride to human degeneracy with progressives.

Anonymous BBGKB May 07, 2017 3:56 PM  

The Jews and Muslims love to tag team against the West

More like Master Blaster.

"I want gay married couples to be able to protect their marijuana plants with guns!"

I want them to have machine guns with silencers.

checked out of Reason on youtube when they released a video on what to do when a mentally disturbed man in drag uses a women's restroom

SO you couldn't figure it out for yourself?

Blogger Rog May 07, 2017 4:00 PM  

Help me out here, folks. My understanding of the NAP is do no harm. Implicit in that is the big "but." But, if someone harms you then self defense is in order. Why is there a problem with that? I suspect do no harm is the essence of the golden rule. Are these bad words to live by? Did Jesus edit himself thinking, "Well, this utopian, it'll never work given human nature, so maybe I'll keep that one to myself."What we do and what we say are quite often different, but can't we aspire to lofty ideals?
Individual sovereignty. I get the impression some here think this is a dirty term. Something to be looked upon with scorn. But what else is there? If you are not free to make your own choices then someone else is. That is not to say that there are no consequences to your choices, just that you are free to make them. Would you rather it be otherwise?
Borders. Sigh. Seems to be much ado about this one. Any libertarian that has given it any thought knows borders is a property rights issue. Who says individuals can't make property rights decisions based on cooperation with others? Tribes, nations, groups etc are how we do things. I suspect libertarians understand this, whether of not they admit it. And having a border is not a violation of the NAP. I consider it aggression when someone enters my property without my permission. How is that a violation of the NAP given the big "but?" Just wondering.
Government. The older I get the more anarchist I become. Not because I believe it will ever work, but because I observe that government ALWAYS brings out the control freaks, power mongers and criminals. It ALWAYS accrues more and more power to itself and ends up killing people in its never ending quest for control. Who here thinks that is a good idea?

Blogger tublecane May 07, 2017 4:19 PM  

@122-The "non-aggression principle" is like the Golden Rule, abd there's nothing wrong with the Golden Rule as such. But you nay have noticed Christianity has more than one rule. Had they restricted themselves to the Golden Rule and nothing else, they never would've got beyond 12 guys.

Anonymous Urban II May 07, 2017 4:22 PM  

Libertarianism is a subclass of Liberalism. Any political ideology that holds the purpose of government is to advance freedom is liberal.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 07, 2017 4:22 PM  

@122 Rog
Help me out here, folks. My understanding of the NAP is do no harm.

The 1970's called. They want their dorm room back.

Blogger tz May 07, 2017 4:35 PM  

@120 "Reason" has become newspeak for reasoning.
a mentally disturbed man in drag uses a women's restroom. There are lots of redundancies here. In any case De-institutionalization has proven to be a dangerous failure.

Blogger haus frau May 07, 2017 4:36 PM  

The moral standards of Christianity are the word of God. The golden rule is is just a general guide. Jesus explained this himself if you were reading for comprehension.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 07, 2017 4:38 PM  

Rog wrote:My understanding of the NAP is do no harm.
Then your understanding is wrong
Implicit in that is the big "but." But, if someone harms you then self defense is in order. Why is there a problem with that? I suspect do no harm is the essence of the golden rule.
Again, your instincts fail you.
The essence of the Golden Rule is not "do no harm" It is reciprocity. You deserve no better than you mete out to others. If you prefer, "Forgive us out trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."
The essence of the NAP is nominalism, or if you prefer, absolute libertinism. "An thou harm none, do as thou wilt."

The NAP is solipsistic, self-indulgent and rebellious. The Golden Rule, or let's be honest, Christianity, is outward-focused, disciplined and civic.

The Libertarian screams "Don't you DARE tell me I have to accommodate to a community!!!"
The Christian asks "Is it just?"

The two positions could hardly be further apart.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 07, 2017 4:43 PM  

Rog wrote:I consider it aggression when someone enters my property without my permission. How is that a violation of the NAP given the big "but?" Just wondering.
A Libertarian considers it aggression when you try to prevent someone entering his property, even if it is across a border.
I have every Libbo here claim Borders are "the same as property rights", but never explain how the collective has a right to tell you who may or may not come into your property.
Tell me, which tenet of Libertarianism gives the collective that power?

Blogger Rog May 07, 2017 4:48 PM  

@128 "The essence of the NAP is nominalism, or if you prefer, absolute libertinism. "An thou harm none, do as thou wilt." And if you do harm someone, then there are consequences. That's the big "but." How is that not reciprocal?
The Libertarian screams "Don't you DARE tell me I have to accommodate to a community!!!" How does do no harm morph into that one?

Blogger Rog May 07, 2017 4:59 PM  

@129 "I have every Libbo here claim Borders are 'the same as property rights', but never explain how the collective has a right to tell you who may or may not come into your property."
Tell me, which tenet of Libertarianism gives the collective that power? You may be confusing the "collective" with mutual cooperation or community cooperation. Isn't that the idea behind "nation?" It ain't perfect and it can be perceived as the big bad rule of the majority but nothing in the libertarian construct prohibits cooperation.

Blogger tz May 07, 2017 5:06 PM  

@122 My understanding of the NAP is do no harm. Implicit in that is the big "but." But, if someone harms you then self defense is in order.

Who defines "harm"? Can 3rd parties defend against harm (i.e. can I assassinate Abortionists to prevent harm to unborn babies)? How do you respond to trespass? What if you don't know who stole something, investigation is invasive, so do you just suffer the loss?

Also, the NAP doesn't mean what you think it does as it is some kind of tax-code complex property rights Which I tried to skewer in a comment to one of Tom Woods' podcasts where Kinsella asserted such - the title was "Why are libertarians rejecting the NAP".

Individual Sovereginity - put more simply, we are all kings. Monarchs. So can set rules - LAW for ourselves. Sovereign immunity. But this makes all conflicts between indivduals wars to be settled with violence if diplomacy fails. No principles.

Borders If we live on adjacent propertes, and I bring a bunch of rapefugees in, and they end up raping and killing your family and destroying your property, am I responsible (for negligently bringing in barbarians) or are they? This is a variant of the undead corpseorations declared alive by Dr. Frankenstate that the owners have no liability so my corporation's dog can maul you but all you can do is seize the corporation and the dog which won't be worth much.
Government
Note the expansions of power is always the concession to the argument "but we are being restricted from doing something good". We need integration. We need social securty. We need to rebuild after some disaster. This can be done at the state level if they want, but somehow it has to be the Feds. That is how we got the Income Tax and direct election of senators, prohibition, and universal suffrage (contrary to most opinion, it was up to states before).

Blogger James May 07, 2017 5:15 PM  

Rog, you asked for help, and this is my 2 cents: Jesus tried to teach us not to follow brutal despots who lord it over us but instead to appoint servants to minister to our needs. Mark 10:42 "42 But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. 43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:
44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.
And then it is written not to be a busybody in other men's matters, because busybodies deserve to be rebuked and punished as miscreants. 1 Peter 4: "14 If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters.
16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."

I find it fascinating and personally gratifying to see "busybodies" lumped in with the murderers, thieves, and evildoers. Such association warms the cockles of my formerly libertarian heart.

Blogger Were-Puppy May 07, 2017 5:23 PM  

Petoria
https://youtu.be/CTetlDGaLkQ

Blogger tz May 07, 2017 5:28 PM  

@131 - to follow up with your example, allowing a rapefugee to cross the border to your property (assume a helicopter if you aren't adjacent) bears a known risk.
Can the person who allows them in be REQURIED under the NAP to have a bond or insurance BEFORE the refugees come in?

One of the problems in structuring the RULE OF LAW is how much needs to be pro-active (v.s. reactive), i.e. before any violation has occurred but the risks are known and significant. There are very few "go about my business locally" things which trigger this, but when you bring in dangerous things - be it substances or persons - then there needs to be proactive action - either a ban, or a requiremen to pay for mitigating the risk and any probable (though potential) damages.
Once in a discussion, I suggested to someone that wanted to bring in refugees that he should house them in his own home, or the church, and they should be responsible for any medical, food, etc. bills, and he didn't like that because it might be expensive. I said - but you trust them, either I'm right and they are going to do something bad, but you want me as a taxpayer to pay for them, or you are right and wouldn't suffer any loss - why should I assume the risk?

It is one thing to have ill fortune cause expenses and thus bankruptcy (does it violate the NAP or not - I have a theory), and another thing to do something that is known to be very risky. Shouldn't smokers pay higher premiums for health insurance?

Blogger tz May 07, 2017 5:43 PM  

Wal-Mart in Mexico after they figure out there isn't enough security. Coming to a sanctuary city near you. The live leak video still works though YouTube has pulled it.

There is nothing to fear but feral itself.

Blogger Rog May 07, 2017 5:53 PM  

@tz "Individual Sovereginity - put more simply, we are all kings. Monarchs. So can set rules - LAW for ourselves. Sovereign immunity. But this makes all conflicts between indivduals wars to be settled with violence if diplomacy fails. No principles." That assumes morality is external. I don't believe that. I can't defend it without resorting to quotes from bearded monks and questionable, small, hairy men who live in caves and who have "given it some thought," I just believe it. So I make the assumption most people know the difference between right and wrong. Naive? perhaps.
@133, "I find it fascinating and personally gratifying to see "busybodies" lumped in with the murderers, thieves, and evildoers. Such association warms the cockles of my formerly libertarian heart." No list of ne'er do-wells would be complete without them.

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 07, 2017 6:38 PM  

@47 Dave Narby

I associate with natives and a lot of "Free-Staters" (Free State Project). The vast majority of my interactions are with small and big "L" libertarians, "AnCaps", minarchists, propertarians, Rothbardians, Christian conservatives, etc.

How's that Free State thing working out so far? Taken over the New Hampshire government yet? Reducing regulation yet? Still voting for Clintons?

The failure of the Free State project illuminates how brain dead and anti-science Lolbertarianism is.

Anonymous A Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents May 07, 2017 6:42 PM  

@74
Also, when I read De Tocqueville's impression of early America, I recognize that we are no longer that people he saw.

Open borders and population replacement will do that.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 07, 2017 6:42 PM  

@Rog,
You're obviously a losertarian adopting the confused newbie pose to implement your motte and bailey argument. Please drop the "I don't really know anything about Libertarianism, but here are 5 reasons it's absolutely imperative" BS. It's stupid and fools no-one.

Rog wrote:You may be confusing the "collective" with mutual cooperation or community cooperation. Isn't that the idea behind "nation?" It ain't perfect and it can be perceived as the big bad rule of the majority but nothing in the libertarian construct prohibits cooperation.
No, the essence of Libertarianism is non-coersion. If I do not care to follow the dictate of the collective (which is what Libertarians routinely call any community standards or laws), then the NAP means you can't force me to, so long as I don not aggress on someone else. So again. If I have property on the border in say, San Ysidro, what is the Libertarian argument for stopping me from hiring 10,000 Mexicans at $1 per hour to work in my factory? Not "Oh, that's just community co-operation". We've already stipulated I don't want to co-operate. How will you force me to co-operate, you disingenuous punk?

Anonymous Bruno the Arrogant May 07, 2017 7:37 PM  

Troy Lee Messer wrote:I will give Reason credit with thier comment policy. U can say whatever u want. A nick vs vox debate would be cool scadenfreude.

Gillespie doesn't do debates. He merely makes pronouncements, and then, with a sniff and a snap of his hankie, he flounces off into the night.

Blogger James Dixon May 07, 2017 7:50 PM  

> Why is there a problem with that?

Who defines what is and is not harm?

However, to illustrate the problem, allow me to ask a simple question concerning the NAP. When those vans of BATF agents swarmed into Mount Carmel at Waco, would the residents have been justified in shooting first?

Most of the interpretations of the NAP I've heard would say no.

Blogger James May 07, 2017 8:13 PM  

""Oh, that's just community co-operation". We've already stipulated I don't want to co-operate. How will you force me to co-operate, you disingenuous punk? "
If I am still a libertarian, I'm a libertarian who understands and has no illusions about the fact that I get my libertarian world the same way tyrants get their tyrannical world: by killing everyone who stands in my way and resists my will. I consider my libertarianism to be morally superior to tyranny, but the fact remains that it only happens by means of overwhelming violence or at least the credible threat of violence.

Anonymous Young Ned of the Hill May 07, 2017 8:58 PM  

I can tell you that, as a millenial former libertarian, you're half right. There are plenty of millenial Libertarians and "libertarians," but very few libertarians. They show up for the sex, drugs, and guns, ignore everything else, and supplant it with generic left-liberal filler garbage. Creates quite the quagmire to wade through for those who might be persuaded to temper their ideological conclusions with reality and observation, and follow it to its logical conclusion (here).

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 07, 2017 11:37 PM  

I consider my libertarianism to be morally superior to tyranny, but the fact remains that it only happens by means of overwhelming violence or at least the credible threat of violence.

Morally superior, how? Once you've killed 50% of the population, and cowed 50% of the remainder into obedience, what will differentiate you from every other ideological paradise?
Libertopia,just one more murder away.

Blogger JP May 08, 2017 11:56 AM  

VD wrote:And finally, no one can prevent the property owner from permitting migration onto and through his property.


No one can prevent you from destroying your own property, but good luck collecting on the insurance!

Allowing immigrants to pass through your property would be expensive and risky, and if they follow by trespassing on neighboring property, you're assisting in the commission of a crime. In a limited government scenario, the courts can rule on that. In an an-cap scenario, there are no courts that have enforcement rights, but there's the soft power of boycott and social ostracism (and of course the legal right for neighboring property owners and agents on their behalf to shoot all trespassers).

It's not that there are no borders. It's that every parcel has a border, and that they're free to confederate for common defense.

Blogger James Dixon May 08, 2017 12:47 PM  

> No one can prevent you from destroying your own property, but good luck collecting on the insurance!

I'm pretty sure that "reasonable fee" for passage will cover that.

> Allowing immigrants to pass through your property would be expensive and risky, and if they follow by trespassing on neighboring property, you're assisting in the commission of a crime.

But their signed contract with me explicitly only authorizes passage to the far side of my property. If they do anything beyond that they're breaking the contract and I'm not responsible.

Blogger James May 08, 2017 4:49 PM  

"Morally superior, how? Once you've killed 50% of the population, and cowed 50% of the remainder into obedience, what will differentiate you from every other ideological paradise? Libertopia,just one more murder away."
I consider it morally superior to leave me alone. If the tyrants would just leave me alone, there'd be no trouble and I would not have to kill them. I am not a tyrant because I am willing and able to leave others alone who do not bother me or try to grind their boot in to my face. And I believe the truth to be that most people would be willing to leave me alone without me having to kill them once they realized I was serious about wanting to be left alone. And God agrees with me because He lumps in being a "busybody" with being a murderer, a thief, and an evildoer.
I Peter 4: 15 "But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters. " Why should I have to apologize for wanting to be left the hell alone in my personal life? Is it so ironic to consider I might be more loyal to and have more social and civic commitment to supporting a community that respected my boundaries? And maybe if I live in a society that had no respect for my individual boundaries I would hate my society?

Anonymous Clay The Swamp Spartan May 08, 2017 6:48 PM  

Huh. We should make sure to the Frenchies, that the next time they are eating snails, we're gonna let the Germans, Russians march in the shade. Who cares?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 09, 2017 9:59 AM  

And I believe the truth to be that most people would be willing to leave me alone without me having to kill them once they realized I was serious about wanting to be left alone.
No, most people would be more than happy to hunt you down and kill you as a danger to the community.And 30 to 1 ain't a fair fight.

Blogger James May 09, 2017 11:31 AM  

I agree that people would indeed hunt me down and kill me just because I want to be left the hell alone, even though I was no actual threat to their soviet collective, but merely want to opt out as an individual, which is why I hate their guts with every nanofibre of my being, with the white hot intensity of a zillion supernovae.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash May 09, 2017 3:19 PM  

James wrote:but merely want to opt out as an individual,
I think you mean "but merely want to opt out as an individualby means of killing people."

Blogger Eggmunkee N May 11, 2017 12:52 PM  

Snidely Whiplash, if you put as much effort as you put into not understanding and not having dialog into their opposites, it might be worthwhile reading your comments. Collectively, I see a lot of wildly inconsistent definitions being slung around, none really hitting the mark, kind of like SJW's trying to say why Trump is bad or why a MAGA wearer is a nazi. If you have to claim opposite qualities of something to prove your point, you've already lost that argument. If you have to pretend not to understand someone to disprove them, you've already lost. Libertarianism is rather individualistic, yet reading comments here, you'd expect that Reason magazine is a religious text acolytes are collectively obligated to worship and parrot. Maybe some of you have little experience thinking outside of power-worship or collective-worship, I don't know, but it seems strange such things could be said seriously.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts