Thursday, August 25, 2011

Liberals v. Coercers

It’s amazing how the labels “Liberal” and “Libertarian” have been bastardized. That happens when crises loom and opportunities beckon. One might expect that “Libertarian” should appertain to an advocate for that system which best sustains liberty through the ages, rather than partying to a demise. That is not, however, the usage in modern parlance. Now, being Libertarian connotes advocacy for governmental enforcement of equal entitlement to every class and age, to every imaginable behavior — so long as the behavior does not immediately harm anyone else. Therein lies the rub. Of course, a smoker more likely sees little harm to others within the vicinity of his smoke. A nudist more likely sees little harm in everyone parading around schools in the nude. An illegal alien sees little harm in taking jobs Americans seem less inclined to do. An Islamist sees little harm in leading other nations to adopt incredibly expensive and intrusive measures so that transportation terminals can accommodate the non-profiled movement of Muslims. A Communist sees little harm in substituting the State for parents in the detailed education and conditioning of the next generation of good little communists. (If it takes a village, is the family an institution of tyranny?) Gay Inc. sees little harm in requiring taxpayers to equally fund, teach, and promote all fabulous and alternative lifestyle choices, for all children, from birth. Atheists see little harm in conditioning children to believe that all higher morality can be adduced from science (“pure substantive objectivity”), free from respect for any subjective apprehension of a higher source for reconciling the morally qualitative. Thus, it would seem more correct to refer to modern Libertarians as confused Libertines, or simply “Libertines.”

Or, perhaps, it may be even better to refer to Libs and Libertines as Flash Mobsters, Gang Coercers, Forebidders, and Ridiculers.  As in:  It is forbidden to discuss non-communist, non-quantitative values in the public square;  It is intolerant not to respect Islam as a religion;  It is parochial to advocate for marriage in terms of one man and one woman; It is hate speech to advocate for traditionally "White" values or against minority values; It is narrow minded not to experiment with drugs, sex, and same sex; It is chauvenistic to try to defend American borders and industry; It is ridiculous to advocate for smart trade as opposed to free trade.

However, how much more can we afford to tolerate the allegedly “non-harmful” extravaganzas of Illegals, Gays, Muslims, Communists (and Libertines), while still evading a final drop into the circling drain?   Libertines would have it that our economic issues are now so perilous that we cannot afford to focus any resources on social issues. Is that so? Well then, ask: How much of our economy has been degraded on account of expenses added in the care, feeding, recruitment, and extravagant tolerating of Illegals, Gays, Muslims, Communist Dupes, and Corporatist Lickspittles? (Aren’t those detriments to economics related to social values?) How much have we lost by denying American society the right to accord preferences and incentives to values more assimilating and sustainable to individual freedom, dignity, and opportunity?

How much can we afford not to worry about “free trade” that is inveigled for the benefit of extra-national corporatists? How much can we afford to deliberately allow American labor to be reduced to compete against foreign sweat shops and still preserve opportunity at home for the individual freedom and dignity of American workers? How much can we afford to enrich and send our technology, industry, and jobs abroad, to entities that seek to reduce all of humanity to the entire control of elite despots?

So then, how much of the Libertine Agenda consists in incoherence? Consider the incoherence of an entire facade of Lib and/or Libertine political philosophy:
- Advocating that the derivation of moral values should be restricted to pure science (or objective reason);
- Conditioning kids from K1 to post doc to take it for granted that the only moral ideas worthwhile are reducible to pure objectivism, and that the spreading of equal wealth and equal pleasure are objective entitlements;
- Pretending to test for when “harm” is done based on “objective science,” rather than on subjective values;
- Acceding to governmental proscribing against “hate speech;”
- Advocating that society, if it chooses to fund any behavior, must tolerate and fund all alternative behaviors equally (as a matter of “right”);
- Redefining marriage in order to bootstrap or force equality in tax availed “rights” and incentives to every conceivable relationship;
- Advocating that equal distribution of tax incentives to gay unions is a “constitutional right;”
Undermining one-man one-woman unions for the legal recognition of parental responsibilities;
- Pretending to support small government while creating a vacuum in the allocation of familial responsibilities (a vacuum that will necessarily be filled by big and expensive government);
- Arguing that taxation is a form of charity, thus entirely appropriate for the complete expungement of religious ideas and charities from the public square;
- Conditioning people to believe that a system that forces belief and oppresses over half its population qualifies for equal respect as a “religion” rather than a form of tyranny;
- Advocating for “free trade” based on competition for sweat shop labor;

Libertarians? I think not. More like Libertines. Adolescents, telling grown ups to “eat their peas.”


Anonymous said...

From A.T. -- Re -- "is this not indirectly putting down religious people of all kinds"

Not by my lights! To me, it points up that we cannot communicate without models, but that every model, when presumed to be complete in itself, is necessarily found to be deficient. Models do not precisely define reality, but only define ways for approaching reality in order to promote practical purposes. We do not perceive, much less model, reality as it actually, finally, completely, is. Still, scientific-based models of quantitative substance are astonishing useful for the quantitative "how" of things. Not so much for the intuitive, purposeful, choice-making, and qualitative aspect of the "why" of things. (You can't derive ought from is.) It's not a matter of putting science down, but of showing the ridiculous inadequacy of every quantitative based model when it comes to assimilating choices about values that are largely qualitative, not purely quantitative. To believe we "should" derive our moral values and political purposes only in respect of science is not only a ridiculous faith, it is a faith that asks humanity to humble itself to fallible human elites, who only pose as knowing best. That is, when science is promoted as a religion, it tries to make scientists the new moral intermediaries to control the masses. IOW, the religious faith of scientific elites cheapens the minds of all others and their own relations with the cosmos. If you prefer the experience of a free mind, you won't like that. If you're a schlep who just wants to gratify his immediate wants and rely on others to tell you how, you won't mind a bit. Unfortunately, America (formerly the land of the independent and creative) is being swamped with the latter.

Anonymous said...

Because Obama's will was deformed from an early age, he has assimilated only from the blinkered perspective of a toddler. At some point, even a toddler begins to internalize his own choices. Obama chose his friends, church, worldview, and czars. He chose Collectivist philosophy over Western philosophy. So, it comes as no surprise that the only watering hole he knows to go to is the one that is frequented by a rainbow of collectivists: wimps, clueless academics, political destroyers, and collectivist eating financial tyrants. Thus, at Obama's watering hole, there are many stealth elites, each always contriving for his best moment for striking. Most believe they are noble, because: their targets don't know what is good for themselves, or they deserve to be fundamentally changed and replaced. At Obama's watering hole, there is not a whole lot of respect for each drinker's separate dignity and freedom. Whether cunning or blinkered, Obama never developed the critical tools to look beyond the collectivist perspective. Because America is fundamentally not a land of collectivists, and because Obama cannot change, it is absolutely critical that he be driven from office. The only way he can succeed is if America fails.

Anonymous said...

Our diplomats continue to negotiate like Pee Wee Herman and Paulie Shore, if they were sent into Commanche territory. Or like Obama. We will never get the Middle East to like us or to be like us. The most we can get is respect. Commanches would not respect Pee Wee, Paulie, or Obama. I certainly don't. I can see removing Sadam and Osama from Earth. Anything much beyond that is a waste. Secure the borders, profile for our enemies, and stop with the nation building nonsense. Our leaders need to grow up and stop letting enemies and appeasers among us coddle and enrich those enemies who are the political polar opposites of ordinary Americans.