"All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies who are anarchists instead of leftist collectivists; but anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet libertarians combine capitalism and anarchism. That’s worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. Anarchists are the scum of the intellectual world of the Left, which has given them up. So the Right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the libertarian movement. " -- Ayn Rand
There are few things as unrewarding as arguing with an idiot -- or a mental patient -- or perhaps a combination of both.
I am well-aware of the adage that one should never argue with an idiot based upon the premise that, eventually, they will pull you down to their level and then overwhelm you with superior weaponry, but somehow, I cannot stop myself.
Perhaps this is mental disorder of my own?
Today's argument was with a deluded individual who considers himself "a Libertarian", but of the sort that has long been common and which, sadly, is increasing in numbers as a general stupidity, and a desire for a uniquely-personal form of identity, permeates every nook and cranny of American Life.
To be fair, Libertarianism isn't the only ideology (and I use that word cautiously) to attract crackpots; "democratic socialism" gives it a run for its money every day of the week. But, when one compares what the crackpots are professing to believe, one cannot help but see the similarities among the two.
The first similarity is an intense narcissism; the ideology is accepted because it gives me an excuse to get what I want, and fuck everyone else.
The second is an inability or (unwillingness) to identify contradictory beliefs, and then to correct them. The beliefs are tied up with the person's narcissism, and rather than admit to being mistaken the belief assumes something on the order of a religious faith, impervious to logic. Again, narcissism: "I cannot be wrong, so it must be you who is, or that doesn't understand, or who is a dupe of ____, or maybe you have a stake in the injustice-of-the-day that makes anything you say suspect".
The third is the unspoken desire to avoid communal responsibility; one wants all the benefits of living in a free, prosperous, secure and egalitarian society, but does not want any of the responsibilities that come with it. Do I need to say it? Narcissism.
The final similarity is to resort to trickery in order to obscure larger issues; the twisting of language, the appeal to emotion over reason, often, the substitution of emotion for reason, the insistence that the afflicted holds the moral high ground, in fact, insisting they hold that moral high ground before they've established they're entitled to it and dismissing all evidence of their own immorality.
All together now....Narcissism.
And then there is the "Martyr Complex". When the afflicted does not get their way, they retreat into victimhood."They" conspired against us; we are beset by the forces of evil; fiendishly selfish people denied me my right to my own selfishness.
You know the refrain by now...Narcissism.
And the thing about "ideologies" like "democratic socialism" and "libertarianism" is they exist precisely because these contradictions, these elevations of the personal benefit over the collective good while claiming to be working for that common good, these myriad excuses for failure and myriad excuses for more of the same, allow the infected individual a social camouflage; safely wrapped up in the idea that they're only seeking a better society, any abuse that takes place in that quest is, therefore, not only excusable, but a moral imperative, justified because "I care" or because "it's my natural right".
In both cases, the individual is virtue signalling; they have no intention of actually DOING anything to achieve what they say they wish to see done. They only need the fig leaf provided by lofty rhetoric to take advantage of others in relative security.
Here's some examples of what I'm talking about:
The Lefty screams about the problem of homelessness in America, and that "something ought to be done about it" and assumes the responsibility for "doing something" should fall upon other people, or better yet, the State. We need "someplace for these people to go", and we need "better services to see to their needs". Yet, it is predictably true that this sort of person will never reach into their own pocket to feed a beggar or donate to a charity; they will not stop gentrifying ghettos (which always results in a scream for "affordable housing" after they've priced the economically-lower out of their homes), nor would they ever dream of inviting a homeless person into their own house to sleep in the spare bedroom.
They want "something" done, but will not do it themselves. Avoidance of responsibility, inability to recognize the contradictory nature of their own utterances and beliefs compared to action.
The Libertarian will tell you that he believes in Capitalism and Free Markets, but then professes a love for Anarchy (in a curiously-defined way that makes it sound like a Boy Scout Jamboree, rather than a free-for-all), and does not realize or care to admit that a) Capitalism cannot exist without laws, rules, and enforceable contracts (making a mockery of "Anarchy"), while b) decrying the "greed" of the unfettered Capitalist (and human nature) that leads to political corruption and social disorder (according to him).
What he really means is "I like capitalism and Free Markets when they benefit me". This is the sort that while insisting he would NEVER take advantage of another (because Non-Aggression Principle), when he does take advantage of you lets you know it's your own fault: "you fucked up...you trusted us", as Otter said to Flounder in Animal House.
Human nature, and all that.
It's like an ideology from a Chinese Menu: you can pick one item from Column A and One from Column B, and reinvent the thing on a continuous basis. This continuous reinvention is necessary because...well, you know, don't you? Without the continuous reinvention, the continuous redefinitions, the deliberate twisting of language, the obfuscation that comes with bad philosophy mixed with selfish emotions, you might begin to notice this guy is a fucktard and doesn't mean a thing he says.
And then you might wish to kick his ass. More than once.
My own experience with Libertarian ideologies, political action, discussion groups (boy, they do a LOT of discussing, because talking a lot takes up all the time one could be using to be DOING anything useful), campaigns, and so forth, has led me to categorize "Libertarians" into four, generally-broad groups, and none of them are very serious people.
(Please spare me the responses and e-mails about how you are the exception to every goddamned rule. People like you make me want to vomit. Preferably into your always-open piehole).
1. Psuedo intellectuals - these are people who like to quote at length from their pantheon of philosophical heroes -- Rand, Rothbard, Rousseau, Locke, Lao-Tzu, Bock, Mises, Rockwell, Cicero, The Austrian School, and about 500 other people you've probably never heard of -- but that's pretty much all they CAN do. They can recite the words, they can explain the concepts, but they lack the depth of understanding that would allow them to tie these all into a coherent message, never mind a coherent ideology.
The fact that he uses a lot of big words and expresses a lot of complicated (not really) concepts is a sign of his intellect. It should be obvious; if you have to ask questions (that he can't answer) then it's plain you'll never understand, because this should all be remarkably plain. Because Atlas Shrugged. You should listen to someone like this because he's smarter than you'll ever be. This idea makes him feel better about himself, in much the same way the leftist demands an end to racism but more affirmative action; it is a sign that one is "enlightened" (although whoever invented that rule needs a good battery acid enema).
It's why some dumbfucks can scream about being an "Anarcho-Capitalist" and others of being a "Libertarian-Socialist" (you mean the rugged individualist willing to give up her autonomy in order to join a collective?), while a third proudly announces his mental retard by espousing "Autarky" (by which he means a more-polite form of "Anarchy" which depends, in contradictory fashion, upon unpredictable Human Nature being controlled by the force of social ostracism -- go figure --while retaining his belief in Non-Aggression).
The Psuedo Intellectual is really just out to prove that he is smarter than you are (he thinks), but not by nature of proving a superior intelligence. He only assumes a greater intelligence because he has devoted time and effort (that could have been used in doing, remember?) to gaining the ability to recite, from memory, things he's read but not seriously thought about.
You can stymie this idiot when he starts reciting "The Fountainhead" or "The Road to Serfdom" by simply asking him to provide a single example of how anything he's read has been practically applied to any aspect of his own life. Then watch the flies zip in and out of his slackjawed mouth.
2. The Disaffected - much like some people will gravitate towards Socialism because of discontent with a system they see as heartless and uncaring and in which they cannot compete, many will gravitate towards Libertarianism for similar reasons. They cannot compete in their particular arena of life, either, and believe this is not a personal failing, but rather the result of an outside force that holds them back.
The socialist has his bourgoise, hoarders and wreckers, reactionary forces, evil capitalists, bitter clingers, basket of deplorables and so forth in their pantheon of people who sit upon them horribly, so does the Libertarian. He has issues with politicians, bureaucrats, political parties, Cartels, Big ____, and a host of others, too.
Note that in neither case is there an identification of a particular tormentor; it is always a broad class, largely anonymous, or better yet, an inanimate entity incapable of personal action or of holding any particular animus, whether we're talking Big Oil, Monsanto, The U.N. the NRA, etc.
The reason for this is easy enough to figure out. If you identified an individual, or even a group of specific individuals, then you could fight against them and perhaps even win. Positively and directly identifying the source of a problem as an individual makes it easier to eliminate or ameliorate the problem. Directing your fury at an inanimate object, or disparate and amorphous crowd -- a corporation, an industry, a system -- that is unlikely to, or incapable of, responding ensures the pet peeve sticks around forever; the romance of "struggle" is kept alive; the "us-against-them" dialectic persists, and the immensity of effort required to overcome justifies continuous crying but no meaningful action; after all, you're powerless in the face of this menace. You are outnumbered and outgunned. You are a victim. But this is an excuse.
It continues to hide, especially from yourself, the truth about you: you're a disaffected, asocial, loser who doesn't actually want to take responsibility for fighting and a lazy fucker who won't put in the effort -- nor take the risk -- to fight. All you do is ineffectually howl at the moon about who is against you, but you never have to explain who "they" are, specifically, nor what, specifically, they've actually done to you.
You usually can't, anyway.
In recent years, I've seen a lot of people in this category coming from The Right (the Lefties gravitate towards more-traditional-but-poorly-understood socialism, and in extreme cases, Antifa). They find "there is no difference" between Republicans and Democrats; they discover that "Conservatives" are no such thing; they believe everyone is in someone else's pocket, including their's, and none of it is to their specific benefit. The have become discontented with the GOP, but haven't the balls to go full Lefty, and in a passive-aggressive way that befits people with no sense of responsibility, no ambition to work towards their goals -- because, that's, like hard, Dude! -- and certainly no fucking balls, they adopt the label "Libertarian" as a form of protest.
It's the political version of when you ask a woman what she's thinking and she replies "oh...nothing...". That's an invitation to delve deeper into the question and so provide her more attention; you could spend weeks at it, and you'll never get the answer to your question. The non-answer is only a tease designed to extract something from you.
The label is a tease designed to lure the GOP politician into giving the "libertarian" the attention she desires, and nothing else. This is because, like the woman who plays mind games with you, the libertarian is a demented beast who can never be satisfied, no matter how much lip service you pay to his stupidity, and no matter what you give her, she'll find another means of attracting your attention for nothing in return. It's all she wants.
This is the nature of the Narcissist.
They haven't yet discovered that, much like the other political parties, Libertarian, Inc. is a business, where the "job" is to continue to use other people's tears to sell t-shirts and coffee mugs, and support a political infrastructure and candidates who are continually running for office (but hardly, if ever, in the case of libertarians, win because this is how they make THEIR living. By continuously running for office and getting paid to lecture and harangue and write books that make no sense. You know who you are, Gary Johnson) that achieves even less than either of the mainstream parties, but keep the secretaries, the consultants, analysts, pollsters, attendant press and candidates funded and eating.
It's a form of welfare. It is an otherwise-useless and non-productive minority earning a fairly decent living through extraction.
They haven't a fucking clue as to what this actually means, but then again, if we've established anything it is that "Libertarianism", much like "Socialism", its just a word that can be transformed into anything you want it to be, according to your own tastes and immediate need.
3. Immature People - these are people who first "discovered" the "naughty" secrets of Libertarianism in college -- much like some of their peers "discovered" the "romance" of Communism in same -- and then never grew the fuck up.
The attraction is that Libertarianism confounds The Average Man. Mostly because The Average Man has no interest in anything that excites extremely introverted, narcissistic, selfish retards laboring under the mistaken idea that they are morally and intellectually superior. This is because The Average Man has better things to do: like earn a living, raise his kids, pay his bills, that is to wrestle with Objective Reality than to continue to revel in the role-playing fantasy of campus revolutionary, of either stripe.
This bunch sees Libertarian politics like a game of Dungeons & Dragons (not that there's anything wrong with D&D; I played it myself, and still do, in electronic form).
It's also the group most likely to earn a living turning out repetitive essays and books on "libertarianism".
4. Stoners - these are drug addicts. Oh, they may deny it, claiming to be merely "recreational users", but on the whole, this is the prototypical, unwashed, Cheeto-and-Hot-Pocket-munching, skateboarding dickhead who loves in Mommy's basement. He is the Eternal Frat Boy. He lives to get high; all he wants to do with his life is to get high. He's a libertarian because he believes Libertarians share in his goal of seeing his drug of choice become a Federal Entitlement, like the socialist, liberty-crushing, coercive Medicare or Social Security.
Free pot for everyone!
This is someone who just wants to get his freak on without being hassled by "The Man", who doesn't realize The Man is empowered to hassle him because everyone else doesn't want to get high, nor do they wish to deal with the (completely foreseeable) aftermath of the drug addict's activities and the systems erected to supply him.
Boy, how does one square the Libertarian idea that smoking or injecting something into your own body is a fundamental right that should not be interfered with and tolerated, when smoking and injecting whatever you want results in higher crime, the spread of disease, greater violence, more-dangerous roads, full hospitals, stricter law enforcement, and destroyed lives?
Again, this is the narcissism at work; the Stoner should be free to kill himself (by all means, please do) but if the consequences of his addiction and deathwish should happen to infringe on the rights and quality of life of others, we should all just shut the fuck up.
This is why I always want to smack the asshole who makes the argument that personal drug use is a "victimless crime", and really, not all that big a deal. I would beg to differ.
The poor peasant in Columbia who stomps coca leaves in a vat of gasoline and acid, and who then gets killed to protect the location of the processing lab is a certainly a victim.
The poor bastard who lugs cocaine or marijuana or worse into America in the face of law enforcement, who is going to end up in jail for a very long time, or dead, for taking the risk while someone else reaps the reward, is certainly a victim.
The people caught in crossfires, murdered, terrorized as rival gangs and cartels fight for turf, distribution routes and rights, or to acquire a larger share of the market with violence, are certainly victims.
The cop who left behind a widow and two orphans because he was killed trying to enforce the laws and guarantee public safety are certainly all victims.
The poor schmuck who dies in an alleyway with a needle still stuck in his arm, the harried housewife or businessman who took the habit up in order to "take the edge off" and then fell headlong into addiction, is a victim.
The people who are the targets of muggers, burglars, assaulted by the mindlessly-high, are certainly victims.
The otherwise-good people forced into prostitution and a life of crime to support a habit they never intended to acquire are certainly victims.
Innocent people are harmed, maimed or killed by the high driver, the heavy equipment operator who smoked a bone during lunch thinking it was no big deal, the nurse or orderly who steal drugs for personal use or profit from a hospital, the doctors who write fake scripts to known addicts for profit.
There are PLENTY of victims, Douchebag. You just refuse to see them because you're a narcissist who avoids responsibility like it came with a combined dose of AIDS and Ebola. All that matters is you getting what you want, and so your libertarian solidarity is little more than a convenient cover for being a rotten human being.
And this, more than anything, tells you about the true nature of the Libertarian; when Libertarian candidates riding a wave of populism DO win elective office, very often the first thing they do is advocate and advance policies for legalized drugs -- or, at the very least non-enforcement of existing law -- and sometimes even policies that encourage drug use (safe spaces for heroin addicts to shoot up; handing out clean needles at hospitals to addicts, and so forth) and having achieved that Holy Grail, guess what ALWAYS happens?
The enthusiasm for "Libertarianism" -- like it was a mystery? -- dries up.
Jesus, I haven't even delved into the convoluted stupidity that passes for libertarian belief or ideology. That's just the list of demented fucktards who usually fall into it's trap.
Next time, for sure.
Update: Fixed some grammatical and punctuation boo-boos. I'm sure I will find more, as my keyboard is somewhat screwed at the moment.
Post a Comment