The past several weeks have seen harsh debate and a sharp divide among our inner circle. The issue? Secession. In particular, whether or not the United States as a nation is something worth maintaining. This may come as a surprise to some: the blog’s generally positive attitude regarding the United States is a minority view in our circle.
Dissent with the current trajectory has been bubbling for months: neologisms like “larping” and “Skyrimist” have not helped matters. Podcast 2 finally led to emotions boiling over. The result hasn’t been pretty.
Discussions very quickly degenerated, criticisms became personal in nature. A lot of harsh words were said; I certainly spoke my fair share. Several long time members (including the fellow who personally brought me into TRS) have gone so far as to actually sever ties. I expect things to remain tense for a while.
I don’t expect a blog post to magically mend fences. That said, I do feel this topic deserves a more even-keeled appraisal than what has been offered on the blog so far. So in contrast I will begin by presenting four allowances on the issue. The Secession Concessions, so to speak.
Once upon a time, I too was once Libertarian. It all started around 2008, back when my political senses and knowledge hardly stepped beyond the boundaries of feel-good territory. When “ending violence” was my top priority. When world peace was a simple Ron Paul away. Those were the days, huh? Back when we all the problems of the world rested on the shoulders of this old republican Texan.
By solving problems, I mostly mean the legalization of marijuana.
Ideological swaps have a common tendency: first, you experience a marked increase in positive feelings and energy towards your new ideology. Second, you disassociate yourself with your previous ideology and sling mud at it. You can’t take it seriously, so even if you have decent critiques of it, the best you can come up with–if you try at all–is a series of strawmen.
So, according to Tucker, the “fullness of (humanity’s) fruits” is being trampled by high time preference-types for a $200 Playstation 3. Most of them are buying these deals on credit, as well. I’m sure our ancestors are proud.
The Non-Aggression Principle is one of those codes of honor that gets carried out by the most naive of ideologues. The An-Caps, Voluntaryists, Libertarians, and Anti-Statists are great examples. Don’t get me wrong, these guys are perfect for identifying the reasonable corruption of various institutions, however the code of honor that they live by is remarkably unrealistic and irresponsible. An act of aggression for the greater good such as forcing someone into a straitjacket so they won’t be able to shoot up heroine would be principally immoral under these premises. This simplistic individualism they hold on to has been critiqued by various left-wing, liberal, progressive douchebags, but it has also been critiqued by those of the radical-right wing such as Bulbasaur.
The thing with the NAP that shouldn’t be neglected is that it’s reliant on the Self-Ownership Principle. The idea is that because individuals own themselves, an act of aggression upon another individual is principally a crime. This is usually applied to protect the individual from the state, but can also be applied to various other institutions, collectives, or even other individuals. With that being said the NAP is pretty brilliant as an idea, as it can be applied to various subjects and issues and still be a relevant principle. Those that support the NAP however, tend to be a little lazy on how they apply it. It’s still a worthless principle.
It is a popular argument among the “classical” liberals that theirs is the correct strain of liberal thought, that the popular leftism of today has deviated too far from its roots and is no longer viable.
The classical liberal types argue that their differences in application of liberal ideals are profound; we argue that they are superficial.
That is why, in this short article, we will compare the modern liberal’s infamous “Life Of Julia” with the classical liberal’s threadbare “Free Market.”
On Tuesday July 23rd, a day which will live in infamy, Lewrockwell.com published a piece by edgytarian Fred Reed, titled “Why Sexual Integration Is A Bad Idea.”
In response to Reed’s work, three “libertarian feminists” penned an amusing retort; amusing, because their collective hissy-fit does more to support Reed’s position than his own work (which I didn’t read).
This humble article will be the type of response I do not expect to be see published on either LRC or Fred’s blog. I’ll get around to explaining why I believe this to be the case. First things first, I must dissect the choicer bits of Borowski, Reisenwitz, and Kristian’s calumnious response to Reed, a concerted effort by three women to promote individuality and feminism (lol).
A few days ago, some pretentious asshole from the urban demographic thought it cute to obstruct justice. As a direct result of his actions, this man can now spend the rest of his life associating Usher with his flailing, dying dog.
In a more sane world, this would be called a “teachable moment,” and not a heartbreaking one. C’est la vie.