Yes, yes, everyone recognizes this is a blatant, brutishly-insulting argument against libertarianism. Hell, even I show you silver-hoarding freakos more respect than this article.
…But doesn’t that strike you as being a little strange?
Michael Lind is both a pedigreed author and well-connected member of the Cathedral; guest lecturer for Harvard Law, the works. I am a twenty-something statist writing under the pseudonym of a Japanese video game monster… Yet Lind’s the one blatantly trolling the Paultards. Something doesn’t add up. This article is a sub-par effort by even Salon’s Vaisya standards… Salon may not be The New York Times or The Atlantic, but neither is it Cracked.com.
What I’m getting at is that in a culture driven by subliminal messaging and viral social marketing, when something is this obvious it shouldn’t anger you, it should alarm you.
So, if this article isn’t meant to be a valid intellectual debunking of libertarianism (and it’s NOT), then what is the purpose?
I have come to the conclusion that this article is an entrenchment, an attempt to bog down and stalemate the discussion. Hence Lind’s efforts to piss you off as much as possible. Seriously, you think he didn’t know libertarians are touchy about Communism?
An angry person does not think about why he is angry. A smart person knows this, and exploits it. The Last Psychiatrist has touched upon this before: a bizarre Western inversion of Huxley’s dystopia, anger is nowadays easier for the society to control, contain, and even profit from.
It is mid-year 2013. Without an upcoming election to divide and enrage (with whitey safely defeated by the baby-killers and shit-skins), there is simply too much risk of people thinking. After ten degenerating generations of children raising children, a reflective man is a danger to the entire system.
And libertarianism is a gateway drug to such reflection.
For instance, if a libertarian separates himself from arguing the “statist” liberal long enough, he may begin to brood upon the notion of Liberalism altogether. This libertarian may then go further, and recognize that in a reality that is anything but “equal,” a social model that attempts to achieve equal outcomes will come to disastrous results.
Separated from liberal memes, one may then see that the ideal of Liberty does not conflate with equality or freedom, but is a result of one’s superiority and domination.
This blunt acceptance of reality is what separates a libertarian from a liberal with edgier language and solar panels. It comes down a simple choice: you can either have an society of, by, and for elites, or a gangbang; Rome and soon America will prove that you cannot have both.
To hell with the turgid critiques of Keynesianism and spamming quotes by long-dead Jews, and to hell with the Liberal baggage of Libertarian morality.
Equality is a meaningless fantasy incompatible with an unequal reality. A free market will not free inferior people. NAP is either enforced state regulation or philosophical masturbation. You were born into a universe that rewards ideals of pacifism and natural rights with a miserable death.
Even worse is for the libertarian to re-appraise history through this post-Liberal lens. The libertarian would then realize that, contrary to Lind’s assertions, there have existed libertarian societies. Successful and growing nations, in fact, and in recent human memory.
Bonus Questions: Guess what destroyed these nations? Guess what resulting nation printed the $100 trillion bill I mailed to Moly a few months back?
Funny how these things are connected.
Lind’s Salon article is solid evidence that Western civilization is coming full-circle. Here is a LIBERAL entrenching, making reactionary arguments against social experimentation.
It is both amusing and satisfying to realize that a steady-enough dosage of blue pills will have the same effect as the red one.