Old but gold, today’s article comes from a December 2013 episode of the O’Reilly Factor. The subject: a federal judge’s ruling on polygamy in Utah.
Bill O’Reilly presents us the modern, toothless, “conservative” take on not conserving much of anything in America. Andrew Napolitano offers the unbrutal and hypocritical “libertarian” perspective on the erosion of our liberty.
Both men would rather appeal to their cow-brained demo than try and discuss the serious issues underlying our culture today. Of course.
Trigger Warning: Modern Realpolitik
So, yesterday FEE published an article by Jeffrey Tucker. It was awful.
I am of the opinion that Mr. Tucker wears his bow tie much too tightly these days; it seems to be cutting off circulation to his brain. Or perhaps it’s all the Rentseekerwitz farts he’s been sniffing?
Whatever the reason, Tucker’s progressive softening of the mind has led him to embark on a campaign not only against his ideological fellow travelers, but against reality itself.
Jeff Tucker’s Libertarianism as a pastel Frankenstein
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.
This is not that.
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 Liberty Without Apologies. A well-intentioned but ideologically blind contributor has typed up a piece arguing that Liberals Need Secession. He seems to have forgotten his US history as well as the fundamental nature of progressive ideology. Let’s take a look…
“I’ve always found it a little surprising that modern American liberals are opponents of secession rights.”
Well, Sir, that’s because you’re in too deep to see things with perspective. Libertarians are simply radical liberals after all…
The philosophical gap between Libertarianism and Fascism is surprisingly thin, given that they are essentially diametrically opposed ideologies. What the split truly comes down to is not so much a matter of whether or not Caucasians can handle living in a minarchist state without devolving into tribal-warfare, but whether or not we can do it without inviting everyone else in and committing cultural suicide. White people have an inexplicably vehement desire to raise the living standards of savages to the Caucasian level of affluence, even to our own detriment. Some even build entire academic careers on the development and expansion of complex moral theories that not only justify such altruistic behavior, but demand it.
“Onward and upward, Whitopia awaits!”
C4SS devouring itself
Occasionally I wander over to Center For a Stateless Society, which operates under the tag line “Left Anarchist Think Tank and Media Center.” Aside from the mostly harmless pontifications of the relatively boring and uninspiring writer Kevin Carson, C4SS has proven to be more notable for attracting the most inane critical theory drivel imaginable from various misfits and miscellaneous social pariahs.
Some of the choicer morsels include the following:
From Nathan Goodman‘s The Knowledge Problem of Privilege:
Women experience misogyny in their day to day lives. Many individual women know things about sexual harassment, casual sexism, and a wide range of other gender issues that I will never know, because I am not a woman, and I do not experience them. Recognizing that this distributed knowledge exists has consequences. It means that I should not dismiss women’s experiences of sexism or presume I know more about sexism than they. It means that within the realm of feminist activism, I should not always have as important a decision making role as the women who actually experience the oppression caused by patriarchy. In other words, acknowledging distributed knowledge leads me to “check my privilege.”
The previous article does well to point out that, at the end of the day, the state does not choose to argue. It chooses a gun and so Hoppe’s whining about the logical implications of an argument are irrelevant. It is also good to point out that all dogmas try to defend themselves by attempting to delegitimize the very act of disagreement.
However, I disagree with the article when it states “Yes, Argumentation Ethics effectively shows that it is contradictory to argue for the initiation of force.”
Hoppe’s argument, when put in plain English, is, I think, astoundingly stupid. It is this: when two people disagree they can choose to solve their disagreement through violence or argument. Choosing to argue means that they chose not to use violence and that means that they think that aggression, as defined within the context of Neo-Lockean property rights, is a universally immoral act.
Yeah, U MAD.