Source: Will Moyer
Though my relationship with the ideology has been stormy to say the least, I ultimately concede my politics and philosophy to be libertarian.
Despite my blatant polemics, inevitably I uphold liberty, the quality to control one’s actions, as the highest end. Human society cannot work without human action, the limitations of civilization require a degree of freedom for it’s citizenry. A coherent society must seek and maintain a middle ground between these two forces. While I maintain that our current incoherence is due to embracing individual hedonism over social standards, I cannot agree with an argument that the hierarchy must always supersede the individual. From what I have seen, to invert the poisoned beliefs underling the anarchist milieu will only serve to accomplish the very same deconstruction of both man and state.
That said, I find that there is no limit of charlatans and morons willing to remind me why I took issue with libertarianism to begin with.
A race joke by Stephen Colbert has massively triggered biscuit-headed attention whore Suey Park. This has created something resembling news on the social networks.
The overreaction and ridiculous twitter crusade reveals to us a culture that is utterly devoid of political dialectic. Chop Suey’s butthurt also hilariously proves the stereotype that Asians have as difficult a time with humor as they do with sounding out “L.”
I’ve long maintained that you can predict most liberal positions will just be the opposite of whatever conservatives are talking about at the moment. This is certainly the case any time some progressive smirks and proclaims that Islam is totally no different whatsoever than Christianity in terms of social consequence. Even the New Atheists, a group notorious for misadventures in philosophy, are at least intellectually honest enough to loudly disagree with the liberals on their naive premise that Islam is “no more problematic than Christianity” and cite plenty of convincing reasons for why this isn’t true. Quite naturally, the liberals considered the intellectual case for disapproving of Islam at considerable length, and then constructed a carefully reasoned rebuttal of this premise. Just kidding! They did nothing but scream “Islamophobia” at full volume, peppering retorts of “Not All Muslims Are Like That” in between mandatory accusations of xenophobia and racism.
Protip: Excluding extremists is common sense, not intolerance.
Behold, the stupidest thing I have seen today… And it’s 2am. Dammit.
Trigger Warning: Jen Sorenson
1. Funny how “freedom” when dealing with human actors always becomes something inherently unequal. Jen ignores this. Of course. Jen instead projects a conception of freedom that involves reality catering to her wants. Of course.
Being one of the only atheists in existence to actually spend time examining theistic arguments instead of just posting Christopher Hitchens memes, I’ve been reading Edward Feser‘s The Last Superstitution: A Refutation of the New Atheism, a book I firmly recommend to anyone interested in either Thomas Aquinas’s metaphysics or seeing Richard Dawkins get some much deserved intellectual ridicule. One of the concepts addressed is the New Atheist tendency to fixate on facile and easily dismantled arguments since the philosophical nuance required for attacking the more esoteric and complex variety eludes their feeble understanding.
Reactionary circles tend to reserve a lot of venom for the Libertarian crowd, much of it well deserved when one considers the autistic neckbearded insanity of many acolytes of the NAP and Saint Rothbard. You could misspend several hours cataloging Libertarian misadventures on the subject of legal age of consent, child abandonment or who meets the criteria for moral personhood. In general though, the Libertarian position does have a few things going for it compared to the typical American political non-options.
Many harsh criticisms have been made on this site, by myself and others, of the more autistic, neckbeardy and fedoraish strains of Libertarianism. Bulbasaur in particular has gained a reputation for pouring vitriol and contempt down on Libertarianism and its bastard stepchildren, Voluntaryism and Anarcho-capitalism. I have tried to take a more moderate approach, but have not always been exactly charitable. This may have seemed like hate to many of you. The words may have stung. Some buttcheeks may have gotten red, chapped or perhaps a bit numb and tingly over the whole affair. (You know who you are.) But Let me assure you dear readers, this was not done out of hatred or anger. At least not entirely. We did it because because we cared. It was tough love. In contrast I am now offering my apology for Libertarianism.
This article will be the beginning of what I plan to be a multi-part, multi-contributor series. The purpose? To seek rapprochement with libertarianism. Yeah, we’re going there.
Today’s article comes from The Orthosphere:
Here’s the headline version of the relevant story: a Catholic high school hires a vice-principal who is (whether known or not to the school) a practicing homosexual. As part of the terms of his employment, he signs a contract obligating him to publicly abide by the teachings of the Church. At some point later on, he “marries” his boyfriend, a public repudiation of those teachings that earn him the termination of his employment — whereupon the Catholic students at the school rebel.
Trigger warning: Modernity, Seattle, Progress, Chicken Sandwich
The modern world turns Catholic school children into social justice warriors. These children, most of them appearing close to driving age, are so divorced from the faith that they are actively working against it.
Who wrote the book on privilege?
The seemingly ubiquitous meme of “White Privilege” has been a favorite topic of TRS since we began. It has been explored at length on this site by myself and other authors and tackled from several different angles and we’ve had a lot of fun with it. I have suggested in previous writings that one sure way to fluster Social Justice Warriors, Tumblristas and “more progressive than thou” lefties in the course of argument is to accept their “white privilege” narrative without guilt or shame and challenge them to make their next rhetorical point. They can’t, because the narrative relies on whitey balking at the concept and arguing against it out of a desire to cleanse himself of the existential guilt implied by the accusation of privilege. I stand by this as an effective argumentative technique that sabotages the progressive narrative and could potentially lead to some valuable reflection both on the part of the leftist as well as their intended white victim.