A Libertarian can live in peace with a communist or a fascist – or even a Republican or a Democrat.
Let ‘em get together, buy a compound, admit like-minded people to their group and do their thing. God bless ’em. The Libertarian will not bother them. He won’t tax ‘em, regulate ‘em or attempt to control them in any way whatsoever. He will respect their right to choose their way of life, even if it means handing over control of their lives to an individual “leader” or “representatives” of the (supposed) will of “the people.”
But none of them are capable of leaving a Libertarian in peace.
All of the political ideologies except Libertarianism are defined by their refusal to take “no, thanks” as an answer. Their unwillingness to leave others alone. Their utter rejection of the principle that government (like any contract) is only legitimate if freely consented to.
If you do not agree with a communist, a fascist, a Republican or a Democrat, he will insist. If you resist, he will use whatever violent means are necessary to compel your obedience. If it comes down to it, he will have you killed.
Chairman Mao – one of history’s greatest mass murderers – was absolutely right when he observed that political power flows from the barrel of a gun.
This goes for Republicans and Democrats, too. They are just less honest with themselves about it than Chairman Mao. They patty-cake talk in euphemisms about the violence that is the foundation of their ideologies. But euphemisms don’t alter the fact that violence is, indeed, the foundation of their ideologies – as much as it was the foundation of Mao’s.
We are talking differences of degree, not kind.
Only Libertarians offer the latter.
You can deride us as “selfish” – a commonly hurled insult – but whatever you may think about us, we aren’t the ones pointing guns at people. We may ask for your cooperation, attempt to persuade you that “x” or “y” is a good idea and worth your support. But we stop there. If you tell us, “no thanks – I’m not interested” we will accept your decision and leave you be. We might be disappointed, but we won’t insist.
That is the nature of our “selfishness.”
We don’t claim you “owe” money for things you never bought and don’t want. We figure it’s up to you to decide what you want and buy it if you want to. We only ask that you use your own money – not ours.
We figure, if you’re not hurting someone by whatever it is you’re doing, we haven’t got any right to interfere with what you’re doing. We may think you’re weird, even foolish. But we will leave you alone unless you aren’t leaving others alone.
Can a Republican or Democrat say the same?
Never.
They differ (and bicker) only logistically. Who will get what taken from whom. They both agree (unanimously) on the taking – and the controlling.
And here’s the thing: Inevitably, the taking and controlling wax rather than wane. Attempting to “limit” it is as hopeless as trying to keep a puddle of gasoline from igniting by only putting a match to a corner of the puddle.
This is a bit of obviousness that escapes, in particular, “conservatives.” I was one myself, once upon a time. So I get the etiology of the delusion that there can be such a thing as a “limited” variety of authoritarian collectivism – and that’s what we are talking about here, regardless of the label on the bottle.
Either you are an authoritarian collectivist – to whatever degree. Or you are not – to any degree.
There is no middle way.
If you are an authoritarian collectivist, particularly a “conservative” Republican one, you have condemned yourself to an endless, hopeless battle about what “works” – as you see it – vs. what “works” as others see it. You will argue over particulars, never principles.
Hence, you can never win more than the occasional temporary tactical victory for your collective. This is what elections in a democracy are all about. What Mencken apty called the “advance auction of stolen goods.”
Never whether anyone’s goods ought to be stolen in the first place.
“Conservatives” tend to be startled by the Libertarian’s moral political position because “conservatives” (in air quotes because it is difficult to ascertain with any precision what it is, exactly, they are hoping to “conserve”) regard themselves as morally superior to those loosey-goosey “liberals.”
But the two have much more in common with each other than with Libertarians.
Nether the “conservative” nor the “liberal” object in principle (or practice) to theft, for example. Or to involuntary servitude (to varying degrees) nor to forcibly imposing their “values” on others, who’ve done them no harm. They are equivocators, quibblers and dissemblers.
You can never get a straight answer out of either.
Only the Libertarian objects in principle and practice to taking anyone’s things, because they aren’t his things. To controlling anyone else’s life, because it’s not his life; to forcibly insisting that others live their lives the way he thinks life ought to be lived… because he has no interest in a master-slave relationship.
Or the reverse.
The “conservative” (and “good Republican” – which amounts to the same thing) is perpetually demoralized by the fact that his is a rearguard battle, a constant retreat. He never seems to get much traction securing the “limited government” he says he wants.
Perhaps it is because he does not really want it.
Or because he does not understand it. That such a thing is impossible.
Having agreed in principle with the “liberal” Democrat – his avowed political enemy – he doesn’t grok why the trend is always toward more rather than less government. He doesn’t grok that it’s useless to complain about “taxes that are too high” without criticizing the idea of taxes (theft) as such. Pointless to bitch about “intrusive government” when one refuses to discuss the legitimacy of government.
Here’s an idea: How about we each agree to abide by this “consent of the governed” business they talk up in school? If you want to live in a commune, gather together like-minded people and go for it. But leave those not interested out of it. Same goes for “conservatives” and their “limited” government schtick. Let them who want it, have it – but leave the rest of us free to opt out. You’ve heard of Go Fund Me? How about Go Fund Yourself.
Yes, I know. I am “selfish” for wanting to be left in peace – and eager to extend the same courtesy to you in return.
EPautos.com depends on you to keep the wheels turning! The control freaks (Clovers) hate us. Goo-guhl blackballed us.
Will you help us?
EPautos stickers – new design, larger and magnetic! – are free to those who send in $10 or more to support the site.
Our donate button is here.
If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:
EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079
This article popped up in the sidebar. From four years ago. Could’ve been written yesterday. Truer now than ever. Should be “pinned” to the top of every page on the site.
So, the etymological derivation of politics? Poly is a prefix meaning many. Ticks are blood-sucking parasites.
So now the (so-called) Progressives want to reduce greenhouse gases by cutting liverstock production. And their proposal for accomplishing that is to tax meat, esp. red meat, to the point where people eat less of it.
http://www.garynorth.com/public/15510.cfm
I say, make mine medium rare.
Why would you want medium-rare Progressive….? 😉
You’re right – the rarer the better, until they reach non-existence.
We can live with high fat and high cholesterol diets. To do otherwise is to eat and drink and live and think like a sheeple. How could it be otherwise.
THE QUESTION OF MACRONUTRIENT RATIOS
http://paleoleap.com/question-of-macronutrient-ratios/
I’ve been consciously “paleo” for several years now and I feel good. My blood pressure is normal again, too (it was high for awhile, when I was on the store-food diet).
Here’s an idea. A while back you asked if we’d be interested in articles about health and fitness, but didn’t pursue the topic any further.
What if you revisit this topic, and start a broad red pill discussion about our diets. Especially male diets. If you are what you eat. Then eating a high carb diet, like the diet livestock are given, will encourage your body and mind to become some manner of sheeple.
All of the mainstream advice on what to eat is wrong. We need lots of fat. And bad cholesterol that is used in conjunction with our white blood cells to repair torn arterial walls and fight off bacteria as we get older.
The great evil is sugar. And especially high fructose corn syrup. It is these deadly sugar molecules that tear our arterial walls. When these tears develop, the same kind of bacteria that rots our gums gets into these tears and inflames and enlarges the whole area.
The pakled fuel that should make our bodies go is 70%fat, 20% protein, and 10% carbohydrate. We can eat all the eggs and fatty meats we want. Especially the kind that are high in cholesterol. The last thing that we need is a low fat diet. Or to take a bunch of cholesterol lowering drugs which are proven to have no effect on our mortality rates.
When the high fructose syrups and refined sugars fill our bloodstreams, it is these molecules that tear our blood vessels and cause the walls to start closing in until finally, the blood clot comes and we have the heart attack and the stroke.
It is white blood cells and ldl bad cholesterol that sparkles over all the tears. The plaques that can be found are full of dead bacteria. Bad cholesterol is one of the heroes in the story.
The same propaganda that infects all the words and images we receive. Also infiltrates all the science and diet advice that we receive. Because there’s no profit to be had by men eating all the eggs and meats they want, and only having to cut back on the carbohydrates and drop themselves into ketosis every now and then to purify the blood.
I’m not really erudite or organized, so I’m likely rambling and leaving lots of components out of this. I was just wondering if maybe there’s a big niche to develop and then fill.
Lets examine every inch of what we eat and drink. Take the red pill and really look at everything freshly and honestly. And leave out all the various blue pill somas that they want us to argue about, so that we never learn the truth of what a Libertarian Diet could do for us. And the healthy robust freedom we could reclaim, once we become immune to all their lies and games.
How Bad Science and Big Business Created the Obesity Epidemic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vr-c8GeT34
Keto In a Nutshell
https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/wiki/keto_in_a_nutshell
uhm……..beer
Along the same myth-busting line, here is a new article now claiming that the benefits of flossing have never been proven & the govt has dropped flossing from its recommendations. The lesson is to question everything!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/02/dental-floss-proof-works-guidelines-dropped
I’m waiting for them to BAN (not just stop encouraging) fluoridated water. After all, di-hydrogen monoxide is dangerous enough when it has not been altered.
EP: “Here’s an idea: How about we each agree to abide by this “consent of the governed”…”
Good title for a book – I’ve read it – it’s about achieving lost liberty.
“Consent of the Governed” Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=jason+hoyt
Of course we can. We’re grandiose fantasy supermen. If libertarians gained power, we would never ever become evil like all the rest. Like pakleds. We have principles that make us go. We look for things that give us liberty. But we are far from home.
Some of us have grandiose heroes like the Founding Fathers. Or the Nazi German Navy. Or God.
This guy’s grandiose fantasy hero is Larry BIrd.
Felon negotiates a longer sentence so his years of incarceration match Larry Bird’s jersey number.
http://www.espn.com.au/nba/news/story?id=2198534
Here is why we can’t all just live together. They want their rules to affect everyone to keep them safe. There is this delusion that everyone is out to get them and government is keeping them safe.
Convo at work. Co-worker hates to travel. I say I like to travel but I hate the airport security. I’d prefer there was nothing at all or leave it up to the air ports. Co-worker, see I think the security is great and we should have even more, if strip searches keep us safe they should do that, I want to be safe on the plane no mater what it takes.
I suggested we could have strip search airline and no security airline, provide id and ticket and get on plane. He didn’t like that because my airplane might land in his strip search airport and blow him up.
They are insane!!
can’t edit… Same guy thinks it’s good that cops intimidate you at traffic stops and scare the crap out of kids. We need to have respect for the law. If that means throwing you around, well, you’ll know better next time.
Bootlickers can’t help themselves. Interestingly, they never imagine that they will be on the receiving end of some good ol’ law-n-order.
I really like your idea of separate planes for the rest of us. I used to travel a ton, and loved it. Now I’ve scaled it back to just a few times a year. It’s too grueling.
I know… how do you know there are no bombings because they simply don’t try because they know they will be caught?
I said because they are not setting them off in security, or in the lobby, or anywhere else.
I’m still not convinced that this entire war on terror isn’t manufactured. I mean why aren’t there bombs going off everywhere? our entire country is a soft target.
I’ve never flown a lot, but since 9/11 it’s been only once, when the wife and I went to Alaska. If we’d tried to drive that, we’d have just gotten there and had to turn around to return.
Cool! I’m considering taking the crew there next summer. How long did you stay?
2 weeks. Wife has an uncle and aunt who live near Fairbanks and they took us around in their camper. Awesome, all of it.
Watch out Donald. John Hinckley is being released from St. Elizabeth’s. Article in WaPo.
“But none of them are capable of leaving a Libertarian in peace.”
This is the paradox. How does a good libertarian be a good libertarian when ‘they’ will not leave him alone? Until everybody is a libertarian (or at least a vast majority of people), won’t there always be non-libertarian collectives more than willing to impose their collectives on libertarians? Doesn’t this imply that until most everybody is a libertarian, that libertarians need their own collective just to protect themselves from non-libertarian collectives? How do libertarians create a non-collective collective to protect themselves?
Hi Geo,
Yes, indeed. That is the question. In fiction, there is the Galt’s Gulch idea. A Libertarian enclave defended (somehow) by a technology Clovers can’t defeat.
Failing that, I dunno…
Maybe the choice we face is becoming like the Clovers – or accepting that the Clovers will rule us.
I suspect the former choice is the one the “elites” made.
As they say, you might not be interested in government, but government sure is interested in you.
When the question of who will build the roads? I tell a story about my neck of the woods. About one hundred fifty years ago the state decided to widen an Indian a native trail into a road. The newspapers would often joke about how it was impassable for most of the year, in fact once the paper said if heading east, use ruts two and five. About fifty years later, a young man had a small saw mill and used to cut ties for the rail bed, which was a much more reliable means of transportation, along with the riverboats. His problem lay in transporting these ties to the rail yard. There was of curse the state road, but its shortcomings were legendary. He took matters into his own hands and approached the landowners between his mill and the rail yard. He offered to build a road through their properties for free so he could transport his rail ties. They all agreed, seeing the advantage of a road from their farms to the railway and stores. He then bought himself a Caterpillar tractor and built the road. The road is still in use today.
That’s exactly it. If it’s needed it will get done. The statist thinks that without force nothing gets done.
Interesting two articles here, which I think will fit with what you’ve noted:
3 lessons from living in a hippie commune
http://www.returnofkings.com/84879/3-important-lessons-i-learned-about-civilization-from-living-in-a-hippie-commune
3 MORE lessons from living in a hippie commune
http://www.returnofkings.com/89220/3-more-important-lessons-i-learned-about-civilization-from-living-in-a-hippie-commune
The author doesn’t know what communism is. He doesn’t grasp the difference between voluntary and how the political system works. It’s not a matter of scale it’s a matter of the gun in the room.
They are ultimately statist on that website. They seem to think that if they can only reform the state the problems will go away. The problems are a natural byproduct of the state. The stronger the state the greater the problems.
“The author doesn’t know what communism is.”
Well, communism CAN be voluntary, as on a ‘commune.’ But a communist gunvermin, like any other gunvermin, is compulsory, not requiring ‘consent.’
I think the Statist, being a lazy taker, can’t imagine himself cooperating without being forced by an outside authority. Therefore their worldview is that NOBODY would voluntarily do anything. It reveals extreme selfishness.
Hi Senior Citizen,
Indeed!
We’d certainly have roads in a Libertarian society. They’d be different roads, of course. Probably, not the network of Interstates as today – and it would take longer to get from A to B.
But, so what?
Which is preferable? The state-created (and hugely expensive and ultimately unsustainable) gigantism we have – or the “organic” model that doesn’t rely on force?
Hamilton (the original American uber Clover) and his type think “progress” (as they see it) entitles them to impose their Grand Visions on everyone else. The success of their endeavors is why we’re all debt slaves now, who have to work twice as hard and twice as long because a third to half our wealth is automatically taken from us to pay for the Grand Visions of Hamilton’s intellectual heirs.
There’s the rub. At first glance, government intervention looks much more efficient and really is far more expedient when it comes to big projects like the Interstates. Nothing gets a project moving like threats of deploying the troops if you can’t get the land owner to “sell” his property for the good of the project.
But the big projects will happen. The dreamers are always out there. Some, like James Hill, will dream of building it themselves. Others, like Leland Stanford were more interested in making a buck and land grabs, so they went for the government assistance route. Since the goal of the first transcontinental railroad was really a land grab it was one of the worst railroads ever built. Compare that to the Hill route, which was incredibly well built, and Hill actually didn’t expand the road until there was sufficient business case to do so (which he also helped foster by providing seed money). It took much longer for Hill to reach the Pacific, but along the way he helped build communities and had a profitable railroad. If you don’t know the story of the western railroads it is worth a weekend’s study.
The other problem is that politicians don’t do photo ops when it comes time to fix the potholes, unless they reach the point where people are complaining. Every politician in the world showed up when the projects drove out affordable housing with their shiny new buildings, but where were they when it came time to repair all the damage and decay?
And more importantly, other than the occasional news story, what happens to the failed projects that would have been contained by the market if they were a bad idea to begin with? Sure the Interstates were a good idea (and would have likely happened anyway), but what about public rail transit? It never goes away, never becomes self-sustaining and generally isn’t worth the effort. Yet there it sits, sucking off the teat of gas taxes (which are supposed to be used for maintaining roads), unaccountable.
I think our road system would be far better. Different yes, would there be interstate type roads, yes for sure, yeah they would be tolled for sure, unless some other way to pay for it was figured out.
If nothing else, at least most of the roads would be maintained properly, unlike our public roads. No public road agency really does maintenance well. Some do virtually none, and it shows. When I sold real estate, many of the subdivisions, actually do have private roads (some open to the general public, some not). And with the exception of one condo project (that is very poorly run) the private roads were in far better condition then any public road. No potholes, etc. Some cases the roads are much older too, since they are maintained, so they last longer. There is a subdivision that even seal coats all their roads annually!
There is no middle way.
This is truth. I fly into a rage when some asshole says, “I’m all for free speech, BUT…” or tells me that they “have no problem with hunting, BUT…”.
I’ve become an absolutist. If it doesn’t further individual liberty, I’m out.
“He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother”
You don’t understand, we’ve all somehow volunteered to be part of this group. Much like the EULAs we all ignore, just by being in the system we submit. The only place for escape is in your mind (at least for now).
I’d like to say that’s sarcasm…
But who will build the roads??
That was a joke…
Hi Todd,
Thank god! 🙂
And if even the Libertarians (big “L”) are selling out, as in having Johnson at the head of a presidential ticket, what is a poor libertarian to do? I’ll probably just write in Ron Paul …… again.
” I’ll probably just write in Ron Paul …… again” – well, be glad you can do that. Here in the People’s Republic of Maryland, even write-in candidates have to be declared in advance. I don’t know all the hoops that need to be jumped through, but writing in any name that is not on the ‘approved’ list will invalidate your entire ballot. Part of the reason I will not be wasting my time on voting any more. They also have closed primaries, so I am still registered as an R, so that I could vote Ron Paul in the primaries 4 and 8 years ago.
Invalidating my entire ballot would be painful, but won’t happen here. I can write-in at every position. I would be disappointed otherwise because the only other marks I will make (and have made for several election cycles) are to vote against each and every proposition on the back of the ballot which entails expansion of government. Due to Alabama’s Constitution, obligations of government must be approved state-wide because in the case of default all the citizens of the state are liable to pay the bill. So, in most elections, the back of the ballot is all I ever see. I get to vote on all of them and, rarely, have actually been able to celebrate their defeat. Strangling the beast should be a primary goal.
As far as candidates, my general philosophy is “Don’t vote for them, it only encourages them.” and Dr. Paul is the only one I chose to encourage at this time, as futile as that may seem to be.
C’mon down.
I’m still waiting for the Brewster’s Millions choice – None of the Above. Until that time, I’m not wasting my time on voting any more.
Amen! I followed the “None of the Above” website for years, hoping the movement would kick back in. The site had long been “dormant” and when I looked again about a month ago it has disappeared.
The “Lesser of Two Evils” option disgusts me, but to say “You can all drop dead for all I care” by voting NOTA would get me to mark the front of the ballot, too.
Go ahead and write me in. I promise to do fuck-all.
Except make pollution control equipment on cars voluntary.
And refuse to fund any of the 440 Federal agencies.
Your FLOTUS would also be pretty hot.
YETI 2016! Make America Chill Again!
How about “Lead YOURSELF!” as a campaign slogan?
Want to be my campaign manager? I pay in beer.
The problem with most ideologies is that they cannot and will not be self supporting. That’s one of the reasons why things are not “optional”. Too many so called “important” things like college, healthcare, the military and the other “free” sh*t have to be subsidized. And since money doesn’t magically appear like solar energy, someone has to “pay” for it. And like Margaret Thatcher famously said, “you run out of other people’s money”.
The government ran out of other people’s money a long time ago. That’s how we ended up with the FED and it’s print money out of thin air nonsense. That will not end well, and people have no idea the amount of chaos that will occur when it finally collapses. It’s effects will be felt worldwide, so our bad politics will draw in people who didn’t even get to “vote” in our elections. It’s not a question of if, but of when. To be honest it’s amazing its held out as long as it has. Probably shows how much wealth there once was.
Most people cannot comprehend the wealth created by electricity and fossil fuels, much less pre-industrial revolution. It is truly staggering, beyond comprehension in the same way we cannot understand particle physics. When teacher tells us the only reason we have the quality of life we do is because of Uncle and unions, we accept it just as we accept that Jesus will somehow fix everything in our miserable lives if we just have enough “faith.” Great story to put children to bed, but if you still believe that when you’re 40 you’re either a dullard or pretty.
that should read “what life was like pre-industrial revolution.”
Spending a week working in an Amish farm will give those people a new found appreciation for petroleum and coal-driven power.
And R134a.
Hell, make that R12.
That’s the point. That week on the farm will end (and they have cell phones and gas engines, just not in tractors and in their homes), and you’ll go back to your cushy life again. That’s going to be in the back of your mind the whole time you’re there. Much like going camping for a few days isn’t going to give you a feeling of what homelessness is like. I cannot comprehend a never ending life on an Amish farm, or being truly homeless. And I certainly cannot comprehend a life when almost everyone lived like the Amish, and only the rich with servants/slaves could have leisure time.
Jesus promised only that His followers would be ridiculed, shunned and attacked. He never promised to fix everything in our lives…despite what Joel Osteen might preach. He is not of this world, this is the world of Satan and as such we have what we have. However, believing in Him that He died for your sins will have a longer term pay-off.
Also, notice how libertarianism is very much what Jesus preached, do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Perhaps the best example is the woman that was to be stoned for adultery. Jesus said “he who is without sin, cast the first stone”. They all split. The one who WAS without sin, Jesus, told the woman to go and sin no more…He didn’t beat the snot out of her.
Exactly right. Too bad charlatans misrepresent the message.