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
To discriminate, or not to discriminate? That is the question.
…That is to say, this is the distortion of reality presented by a modern media.
Support gay sex or face gay sex in prison.
The argument is typically framed as one side discriminating the other. That this is an unsatisfactory situation goes without saying. Of course it’s bad to discriminate. Now salivate when I ring the bell.
False dilemma, thy name is Jeff Tucker
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.
Thy Name Is My Enemy… And my enemy is not “The Cathedral.”
This dreadful linguistic error is something I have been guilty of committing numerous times in previous articles, to the peril of both myself and my readers. In this article I will begin work towards correcting this error.
Response to: The 5 stages of becoming an anarchist
Maybe you’re no longer an anarchist. But TRS? NO WAY.
Some day, however, you might be.
On the road to Right Stuff, there are five stages. And unlike ancap applications of the Kübler-Ross model, you will not come out posting profile pictures looking like a goofy motherfucker.
Dear Jeffrey Tucker,
I’m very sorry that you live in a society where notions like “productivity” and “mutual service” cannot be rationally advanced on a masturbatory social media outlet like facebook.
Let me begin by stating that I believe everyone reading this article will at least share my desire for a more orderly and prosperous society than what currently exists in the West today. With that said, my criticisms and considerations are mainly directed at libertarians.
I should preface that I myself have been a libertarian since 2007 or so. I supported Ron Paul in 2008 and would have liked to have seen him get the GOP nomination at least in 2012. Besides that I have read, watched and studied libertarian ideology since then, so don’t believe a return criticism that can be leveled at me is, “he just doesn’t understand libertarianism!” In fact, it is my understanding of the subject that informs these criticisms.
Libertarians desire a society that has more personal liberty, economic freedom and less “nanny state” molestation of the individual. These are indeed admirable goals, but their ways of achieving these are mistaken. Many think this can be done through either nonviolence and the non-aggression principle, or a sort of Fabian philosophical drift.
Seeing nothing new under the sun, I’ve come to think, as The Joker put it, “that is the one rule you’ll have to break to know the truth.” To paraphrase him, the only sensible way to live in this world and achieve your goals is not through the absence of rules(ers), but by not allowing everyone to decide on the rules.
Among my supposed “fellow travelers,” one finds a recurrent theme: the cultural/economic system known as “Capitalism” is almost universally considered an ideal means toward achieving true human progress.
Some theorists venerate Capitalism as a culmination of human action, the apotheosis of society; others regard it as an amiable, though sometimes amoral and conflicting, system for achieving social ends; but almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the dopey and/or murderous “public sector” and often succeeding in competitions of wits with their peers (and little else).
With the rise of Democracy, the identification of Capitalism with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense, such as “Everything you love you owe to capitalism.” The useful collective term “individual” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the Capitalistic realities of a Postmodern West, a Geist without a Zeit.
What if libertarianism is a useful tool for a government that avoids revolution through materialistic diversion?
What if a libertarian can be a racist or an egalitarian, a socialist or a conservative, a statist or an anarchist? What if you have been too busy arguing over who is the Truest Scotsman to notice how broken the word is fundamentally?
What if your independent and voluntary participation on an-cap/soc/nat message boards and those rational purchases of silver coins and solar panels amount to a herd mentality?
What if concepts like “individuality” are part of a manufactured narrative that serves less to empower, and more to anesthetize?
Long, long ago…
Some Jew in a bow tie told me not to trust the Statist. The Statist, he said, would lie and deceive me. The Statist was only interested in my wealth, so that he could redistribute it to his asshole friends while I wallowed in ignorance and squalor.
Thankful for the advice, I gave him and his knowledgeable friends a lot of my money in exchange for their pretty books. Despite the fact the majority of these books were copies of the good ones, and the good ones re-hashed the bow-tie wearing Jew’s three sentences of advice, the works were well-bound, and looked super sexy in my bookcase. It never got me laid, but you never know, right?
Anyway, thanks to myself and other appreciative folks like me, the people who sold me these books now can afford to have a lot of educational events and host web space where their professors conduct online lectures that reinforce what their books say (though at a price I could never really afford). They also wear bow ties.