If you’ve been paying attention, what you are about to read should not surprise you.
British Philosopher and self-proclaimed “futurist” (read: useless, overeducated, disconnected net negative on societal resources) David Pearce penned an article that drew attention from lefty Gawker science rag io9. The article, entitled “Reprogramming Predators” is part of his “Blueprint for a Cruelty Free World” series, which aims to eliminate, in a way which he believes to be realistic, literally *all* forms of suffering from this Earth. Including suffering by non-sentient animals, which puts him on a whole new level of liberalism.
How does he intend to do this? Why, by genetically altering wild animals to eliminate all predatory instincts. Pearce gets upset when wild animals kill one another, so he desires to put an end to the entire concept of darwinism. Ironic.
Fun fact: until recently, I had never engaged people on the topic of abortion. Living in a red state, I have had little contact with the baby killers. I also tended to avoid the topic; perhaps I subconsciously knew I would hate the results.
Honestly, I was inclined to believe that things are the way they are because of inertia and Wendy Davis.
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 North Carolina school is being criticized for caring about a child’s safety more than appealing to the hipster and single-motherhood demographic (i.e. liberals).
Unfortunately named 9-year-old Grayson Bruce was apparently too busy being a special snowflake to get the hint regarding social hierarchy. Recognizing this, the child was told by Buncombe Country Schools to stop making himself a target and to stop bringing his My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic backpack to school.
There are few things in this world stupider than a single ant. They are incredibly simplistic machines. For example, a leaf-cutter ant will cut leaves and bring them back to the colony. That’s about it. If a forest fire happens to break out while the ant is cutting leaves, the ant will burn to death cutting leaves. It won’t stop cutting leaves, because that’s basically all its genetic coding has programmed it to do. It doesn’t have a program for dealing with a forest fire, so it continues cutting leaves until it is incinerated. You wouldn’t expect much from a species like this, and yet an entire colony of ants is capable of producing heating and cooling systems, agriculture, raising livestock, producing medication (antibiotics) and even owning slaves. Despite only having a couple hundred-thousand neurons apiece (we have about 85 billion), get enough of these guys together and they can accomplish things even a single human cannot. How much more then could humans accomplish in great enough numbers? Reach the moon? Create the internet? Design shoes that light up when you walk? Trivial. The truly miraculous thing man has done is alter his own nature.
Starting with the opening lines of the article, we are shown precisely why the modern conservative is so thoroughly hopeless:
College classrooms are supposed to be politically neutral, not indoctrination centers for liberalism. Yet, we have conservative parents who save money for decades to send their children to universities that teach everything conservatives believe is wrong.
(I would’ve attended to this sooner, but at the time I was quite preoccupied with Life Beyond The Keyboard.)
To begin with I think the former author is conflating some concepts and muddying the waters with a few terms here. To believe in the existence of a doorknob in your hand is quite different than believing in the existence of a supernatural God that sent His Only Begotten Son to die for your sins. The human mind doesn’t regard the abstractness of metaphysics the same way it processes the material “reality” of physical objects.
This is the really interesting bit though:
“People think in terms of the supernatural, humans are fundamentally and inevitably religious creatures.
The return to totem and supernatural worship occurs because to consistently worship yourself above all else is to actively oppose all other concepts and beings in reality, to be incapable of having any real place in a human society.”
If the preservation of the collective is the ultimate goal of The Right; The degeneration of the individual is the goal of The Left. Feminists channel individualism when they say that they shouldn’t have to live under the rules of Patriarchy for the sake of others, whilst those who call themselves “Child-Free” say they shouldn’t have to produce/raise kids for the sake of others. This desire for independence, almost always leads to totality.
Individualism quite frankly cannot be a functional principle for any civilization. Civilizations requires a stoic sacrifice for the greater good. Monogamy is a great example of this, after all most people at one point in their lives thought that monogamy was a scam. Why have a long term, conflicting relationship exclusively with one person, when you can have multiple, no-string relationships? Isn’t that the dream of every aspiring PUA? Why make the sacrifice of being with one person, if it means you’re going to live a boring life full of nagging and an aging woman, when you could be living the rock star lifestyle?
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?
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.