Tuesday, June 3, 2014
10 Reasons Why It's Okay To Be Mean If You're a Libertarian
Recently I have been convinced to abandon my long-held liberalism so that I may adopt the only intellectually defensible position ever created: Libertarianism. Yes, my evil statist beliefs have been exposed as the naieve ramblings of a severely inferior mind that couldn't, at the time, grasp the unique and complex beauty of the anarchist position. My stupid, harmful beliefs are behind me now thanks to a blog post by Chris Cantwell titled "Top 10 Reasons Libertarians Aren’t Nice To You", an erudite masterpeice of literary critque of my former liberal associates with a clear and concise arguments that not only explain the seemingly crazy behavior of many libertarians but exposes the shortcomings of every position that isn't Chris Cantwell's. As an introduction to my newfound political affiliation I'd like to give my own blatantly inferior take on the ten reasons why libertarians aren't nice. This won't be nearly as amazing and infallible as Mr. Cantwell's work, I'm merely a n00b, yet hopefully my interpretation of his (what I can only assume one day will be) legendary work will serve as a baseline, a marker for which I can compare myself to when I one day master the ways of the libertarian. Keep in mind: Every argument I'm about to make I got from Christopher Cantwell. So without further comment, let's begin
If only people would listen to reason, they'd know how right we libertarians are. Now I'm not going to justify this claim, like Mr. Cantwell I'm merely going to assert that the only people who are reasonable are the people that ascribe to libertarianism. No rational person has ever been wrong about anything or held what later was found out to be a massively incorrect position. It is a wonderfully powerful argument, because I can dismiss anyone who disagrees with me as wrong or irrational because since they disagree with me that proves they are wrong. We know it proves they are wrong because if they were right they'd be agreeing with me, which is true because those that agree with me are right. These points can just keep going on and on . . . like a circle. Maybe we should call it a circular argument of sorts. That's catchy, people like round things like gold coins which we'll use a lot of when we go back to the gold standard.
Now we've noticed that on occasion people who aren't libertarians resort to ascribing certain people with negative descriptions. Whether or not this is ever justified is not something we need to consider; the fact is that other people do it on occasion so we can totally justify doing it almost all of the time with reckless abandon.
This name calling we see in politics today has been a recent development and totally not a tactic used consistently since the dawn of politics. Though we claim to believe it's unfortunate, we might as well join in because comforming to social norms is all what libertarianism is about. Taking a prinicipled position is only a good idea when it's convenient for us. It's really your fault that we're assholes to you; if you would just stop being so wrong all of the time we'd go easy on you. Remember, anything bad is the fault of statists, that's how we know we're right.
Since the only worldviews that are reasonable are ones I agree with, if you have a well-thought out position that differs it must mean you are entirely hopeless. The ones we are really targeting are people who have no clue what they are talking about. If you've ever been told things like facts about how the world works or read any sort of political theory your chances of subscribing to libertarianism drop drastically. It must be the government's fault. It's also because people who have read these things clearly aren't looking for any sort of objective truth, we know this is the case because they haven't found libertarianism yet. Let me be clear: The only people we are interested in are those that have yet to be informed about anything so we can fill their heads with what we believe before anyone else does, because that's the only way they'll ever believe it. Liberals don't become conservatives (except when they do), conservatives don't become liberals (except when they do). What people often forget, is that if we try to find common ground and work with people who don't necessarily follow our entire agenda, we risk both of us benefiting and getting what we want instead of us just getting what we want. Compromise is for other people, and we don't do what other people do except for what I described back in #10 as a way to justify our actions. In that case it was okay to use the tactics of successful people, but not here because reasons.
If you've ever come to a conclusion that differs from mine, you are obviously dumb. Smart people are perfect, so if I perceive you disagreeing with Mr. Cantwell, the person who is right about everything that has to do with libertarianism, that means you must be not very smart. Pay no attention to this when I contradict myself a few more points down the list. Also, get really used to me contradicting myself, so used to it that you stop even bothering to notice.
For example, some people contend that the State is capable of doing good, even if it is in the most minor capacity. If they think this they must be crazy, because we've cited clear instances when the government has done bad. If the state has done anything bad or made mistakes, they couldn't have ever done anything good. Let me reiterate: this is Chris Cantwell's reasoning for calling people dumb, they list reasons where something went right while there exists things it also did badly at. It's just like those people who think Michael Jordan was a good basketball player, not realizing he actually missed thousands of shots throughout his career. Idiots.
So when you see us debating people, it's only because we want to make them look bad in front of people who don't know any better. This is why act like assholes to them, because assholes that throw shit everwhere always come out smelling fresh, right?
Libertarians who want to win elections aren't true libertarians. Only ones that conform to Mr. Cantwell's rigid definition of what a libertarian is count as libertarians. Just like Scottsmen that don't wear kilts aren't really true scottsmen (or wait, is it that those that do wear kilts aren't true scottsmen? I forget which one I prefer to be the objective definition that everyone else should follow), so too is it the case that libertarianism is defined only how Mr. Cantwell sees it and we can exclude or include people as we see fit to suit our own political agenda.
The nature of the State is to make false promises to bait support from the people it victimizes. No one ever wanted to do something good for people within government. Chris Cantwell I'm certain is a pyschic with powers that can go back into time and read the minds of everyone in government ever. Now contrast this with the private sector, which never tries to victimize people or give them an unfair shake, or monopolize a vital service and then charge exhorbitant prices for it. The private sector is always good, and if it isn't, it'll be fixed real soon by the invisible hand of the market. Government is always bad, as we went over in #9, it can't have done any good when it also does bad. The government, on the other hand, promises things and if you don't count all of the successes, you only have failures. So the government can only fail. Flawless logic.
Chris Cantwell knows that no one has a right to be a ruler, and though technically that argument would only apply to a dictatorship or monarchy and not a democratically elected representative because no one asserts they have a "right" to rule, his phrase is just so damn catchy and badass citing minor details like "facts" don't matter here. The real "fact" is what we're trying to do is make the state as non-functional as possible, and when we do we get to take credit for being right about the now non-functional the government is. We're just your friendly neighborhood sabatour. You're welcome.
Remember that time you had a discussion on a topic you've previously discussed with someone else? Of course you don't, that just doesn't happen. Once you've discussed something, it gets resolved immediately and you never have to worry about talking about it again. Libertarians, however, have the magical ability to distrupt this otherwise infalliable law of the universe. We actually discuss libertarianism frequently with people, and when they don't immediately buy into everything we have to say, just because it's a radically different take on a long-held principle that we're hating on as though it was the spawn of Satan and Ann Coulter, the latter of which I now can count on my side, and isn't that a plus?
Now as you know, people always begin a discussion with an intuative understanding of the other person's position and what their knowledge and arguments consist of. If you are really into video games and think RPG's are the best, everyone will know what games you don't play so they can judge you on the merits of those games. With Libertarianism, our stupid opponents always begin at the beginning, as though they don't believe all Libertarians agree on everything. Why should we explain to you how roads are supposed to work without government if the last person we tried to explain it to didn't automatically accept and agree with our explanation the first time we gave it?!?! We've explained why we're right already, the fact that people still disagree with us is a testament to their stubborness and stupidity. You clearly have no clue what you're talking about, so we really aren't interested in engaging with you. Now to be fair, I earlier pointed out that those kind of people are the only ones we're interested in, but to continue being fair we did agree you'd ignore all my contradictions.
The problem is you only listen to your team. Unlike we libertarians, who always give careful and thoughtful analysis of everyone's argument. We take the time to rationally consider what people have to say, and we'd never have to write an entire article explaining why we actually don't do that very thing like Mr. Cantwell's article certainly didn't do. Confused yet? You're probably a statist.
People always ask us "what if" questions. "What if once we establish a governmentless society without a centralized defense we get overwhelmed by a society that has a centralized army?" or "What if a strong economic force begins to dominate and control more power than even the government now weilds only now without any way to actually fight against it through representation?" or "What if you started taking your medication?" The answer to all of these questions is that since I'm able to answer them, that makes me free and that's all that matters.What I might believe might lead to an immensely unstable and dystopic world of poverty where you're simply trading a governmental power with a corporate power that has even less accountability to the people, a world not far off from other dystopic literatures we've invented, but now your hot dog at 7-11 is $1.00 instead of $1.06 so that balances it out.
All these discussions we’re having really boil down to economics. Your politicians and propagandists feed off of your prejudices and religious ideas and emotions because that’s the easiest way to manipulate you into acting against your own best interests. Kinda how in #10 we advocated using ridicule to manipulate your emotions, only it's okay when we do it. People could point out that we're hypocrites, and they are right. All Libertarians follow the hypocrite oath of "do no harm". We all know we're hypocrites, just as Mr. Cantwell is likely aware of his own hypocritical tendencies.
But yeah, if you haven't educated yourself about why we're right, then you're a loser. Just open up an economics textbook, where there is a 100% unilateral agreement that libertarians are right. It's not like there's a huge disagreement between those who think socialism is better vs. capitalism with a very small sliver of the academic scholars actually being libertarians in Mr. Cantwell's way. No need to check my facts on that, I've already done it for you and found we're correct.
Libertarians are smarter than everyone else. Let's take a large sampling of people, divide them by political affiliation and match the average IQ's of people who are libertarians with the average IQ of everyone else, as well as comparing it to the average IQ of indiivudal political affiliations. Actually, scratch that. That's dumb. That's what a statist would do. Instead, let's pick one organization that is really smart, like even people in the top 1% of intelligence don't get in, and let's pick about 50 of them and ask them what their political beliefs are. Then we'll cherry pick the sections where they agree with libertarians, things like wanting to remove drug laws and legalizing prostituion. Sure, liberals are for those things too, but according to Chris Cantwell this super smart society also overwhelmingly wants government out of healthcare. For example, the link he cites says "A public health care system that provides for the poor and the elderly was favored by a majority ranging from 67% to 74%". That sounds like they are actually in favor of government run healthcare, but since they are smart people and smart people are libertarians, it must be a typo. I mean, if it wasn't a typo that would make Christopher Cantwell at best grossly incompetent at reading data or simply lying through his teeth . . . so typo it is!
It would seem the fact that Libertarians are smarter is the death knell for all other poltiical ideologies, according to Mr. Cantwell. It makes perfect sense, after all, if libertarians are about anything they are about appealing to authority.
Unlike most people, we recognize that morality should be consistent. Non-liberarians recognize that their own morality is inconsistent and don't seem to care, but I'm here to inform you that's not how it's supposed to be. I know, you're probably shocked, you stupid statist. It's true though, it's better to have a consistent morality than an inconsistent one. I'll give you a moment to get over the shock.
Now notice that there are people that will say they adhere to a particular morality but are caught doing things they have earlier claimed were wrong to do. I'll only use examples of non-libertarians to further my cause. See, they do this because they have an inconsistent morality, not because they are either pretending to hold beliefs for personal gain or just simply that they aren't perfect. No, it's because their morality is inconsistent. This might not make much sense to you, because an inconsistent morality would be one that had a contraditction in it or couldn't be applied to some situations, and what Mr. Cantwell describes is people going against what is technically a consistent morality. We might be inclinded to refer to Mr. Cantwell as someone who doesn't know what he's talking about, but we're not going to do that. Don't make me explain to you why he's always right again.
Mr. Cantwell also can't be wrong when he merely describes his morality, the non-intitiation of force, and assumes that its simplicity means it's entirely consistent. Consistently and simplicity sound like two separate ideas, but I assure you they are not. Go read another economics book, I'm sure you'll figure it out by then.
If you'd like people to threaten you all the time, or "or have a stable society wherein there is a mutual cooperation and agreement on how to govern which protects against the disenfrahchisement of the already downtrodden" as most of your stupid statists put it, go right ahead. I mean, we think it would be a lot better if you had to pay for police services and that if you ever get sick you should just go off and die if you can't find enough charity because freedom, but whatever. If we do win, we'll allow you to submit to someone else's authority, which I'm certain will not wind up putting you into economic slavery. I mean, if you were in a situation where you'd be force to sign a very unfair contract for a very long time or die of starvation, it wouldn't be that bad because you freely chose that. Therefore this criticism is invalid. Check and mate.
Polite discussion in politics is an illusion. Whenever somebody doesn't get their way they always force the other person to comply with their wishes. Well, assuming you don't count every election in the history of our country and the vast majority of instances where representatives voted. Okay, so maybe that's too harsh. We do at least have a system system wherein disagreements on how to proceed as a civilization are done through a civil vote that let's those in power at least be partially accountable to the people they govern, and that the system works just as it's supposed to, people actually go along with a majority rule in order to support actual stability . . . but since that's not what we want it's the worst thing imaginable.
Also, just try to imagine what would happen if people told you what to do before you voted on it. This completley different scenario isn't one you'd like is it? Ha! Gotchya! When you do something in reverse order and you don't like it that means the original order must also be bad. When you eat the ingredients for a cake and then put yourself in the oven it's just as pleasurable as if you did it the right way.
We libertarians are, surprinsgly, able to count and know that we have lower numbers. This means we're inevitably going to be forced into things, like being taxed for using governmental services instead of getting them for free, or being forced to follow through an agreement by which we purchase property from the government that we know ahead of time is taxable (or property that was once owned by the government and is still under that same agreement). Sure, we could just not participate in the government and live on our own without ever paying any taxes, but that's inconvenient. I mean, have you ever eaten a stuffed crust pizza before? You can eat it backwards. Unfortunately, Pizza Hut doesn't accept payment in gold because they hate freedom like the rest of you. What, do you expect us to not benefit from all the things the government has helped run? Or maybe my own stuffed crust pizza? That'd take effort. We're not that principled.
We have no way of escaping this violence (and still be able to eat stuffed crust pizza). This violence of being threatened be forced to pay the amount we agreed upon by entering into the system. Really, you should be thanking us, because we really want to shoot you in the face for making us stick to our agreements. Yes, we actually believe we should be shooting you in the face for what you've done to us. So now you understand why you should do things our way, because if we ever get in the position where we can shoot you in the face for being a statist, we totally won't take it. If there's anything libertarians are associated with, it's a calm and rational reaction to problems, like completely eliminating any sense of governance to be able to buy diseased meat if I feel like it. It's just so simple, even someone who has no idea what they are talking about would think of it!
Most of you probably can't keep up with any of these points, so let me simplify it for you: You're wrong, Christopher Cantwell is right. Just believe everything he says without question, recognize how you've utterly failed your species, and move on to go work for five cents an hour in a coal mine without any saftey precautions because saving lives might hurt the bottom line. You'll probably be dead within the year, but at least you won't have Uncle Sam forcing you to have health care.