Monday, May 12, 2014

The Thick Libertarian Plot Thickens

The recent post "L. Neil Smith Gives 'Thick' Libertarians a Thick Ear" got a couple of interesting comments, interesting enough to lead to this post.  The first is from Thomas Knapp:

Interesting that an ultra-thick libertarian ("libertarianism = the non-aggression principle plus a state big enough to guarantee that my ignorant ethnic prejudices never have to acknowledge reality") would publish this piece.

Well, I'm sure Thomas is sincere here, but his comment would seem to indicate that he didn't read the whole post, or that he didn't understand, the whole post, or that he's pretending not to have understood it. I suspect the latter, but you never know. The "thick" libertarians are of course leftists, and they just don't wanna be libertarians unless a set of silly liberal dogmas are made a fundamental part of it. Of course, if that happens, you no longer have anything that can remotely be considered libertarianism, but just a bunch of liberals who speak respectfully of Ayn Rand.

I'm not a "thick" libertarian. I think the ZAP, or NAP, is a perfectly good complete definition of libertarianism, and I think that most all liberal dogma makes libertarianism an impossibility. I'm not thick because I think nationalism is a fundamental part of libertarianism. It isn't. But it is a necessary precondition for a stable libertarian society. Libertarianism is a recipe, and the recipe is valid all by itself. It does, however, need a source of ingredients to be viable. Likewise, a free society requires some things that aren't part of the definition, but which are necessary to its formation and preservation. And we all know that's true.

Oh, and Thomas gives away his own liberal inclinations, whether he realizes it or not, by the PC term "ignorant ethnic prejudices."  In the first place, "ignorant" is the universal liberal term for all those who disagree with them. The right almost never uses it, except in its literal meaning. And, interestingly, an "ignorant prejudice" is a redundancy, because it means a judgment from a position of ignorance. And while, being human, I might do that now and then without meaning to, I certainly don't have any ethnic prejudices. I have opinions, of course, about all the ethnic groups I know something about, from Afghans to Zimbabweans, because I've either had experience with them or have read what people write who have. In order to have a prejudice, I'd have to form an opinion about some ethnic group I know nothing, or nothing much, about. For example, if I had the opinion that Manxmen were really honest, or really dishonest, or great cooks, or habitual pickpockets, that would be an ethnic prejudice because all I know about Manxmen is that they liver on the Isle of Man and speak, or used to speak, a Celtic language. On the other hand, I do know quite a bit about Navajos, so my opinions about them might be good or bad or accurate or inaccurate, but they are not prejudices. Of course, Thomas is probably just using "prejudice" to mean any opinion that differs from his, like most liberals.

A much more helpful and nuanced comment is from Barzini, he of the quibcag:

Really good post! I learned stuff and laughed out loud - a good combination.............

But here's the deal with libertarianism (whether thick or thin, or left or right, or up or down), as brilliant as it would be if it ever existed, it can never exist because it does not take account of the presence of a hostile organised group focused on taking over and enslaving the populace.........

The way I see it, the mind disease that all Libertarians suffer from is the belief that Liberals are just a result of our f*cked up system and that they are simply mislead, naive, insane, deranged etc.....

While this may be true for your typical 'ground level' liberal (the kind we end up arguing with on forums and in real life), nothing could be further from the truth when it comes to who is actually behind liberalism, who is promoting liberalism - ie the owners of the media and the federal reserve .....

These people know exactly what they are doing: they know liberalism is poison, they know mass third world immigration is poison, they know feminism is poison, they know core curriculum is poison - that's the point, they're at war with us - they are trying to destroy us

And that's why Libertarianism is useless as a system - there's just no way of identifying a common enemy and defending against it - and if there's one thing that history has taught us it's that there is ALWAYS a common enemy.....

When it comes down to it, history is genocide, we are currently being genocided, we need a system that helps us fight back and then that ensures that we are protected from another attack in the future - libertarianism will never ever be the answer......

Just like liberalism, libertarianism simply does not reflect reality, nature and the human condition - it is therefore doomed to fail in the battle field and all the energy being put into it is a waste.........


And I really can't find anything to quibble about in his comment. His critique is perfectly correct. I'll say only that there is a core of libertarianism that, when applied rationally, can serve us well. And anybody who's read this blog very much knows what I mean by "applied rationally."
------------
Quibcag: Alas, I have no idea who the scary girl with the poison syringe is. Flash!  I was just informed that she's from Higurashi When They Cry (ひぐらしのなく頃にHigurashi no Naku Koro ni, lit. When the CicadasCry)
--------------
Late breaking.  Thomas still doesn't get the point. He comments again:

Hmm. You announce that you are not a "thick" libertarian, then go on to establish beyond any reasonable doubt in the same paragraph that you're about as "thick" as it's possible to get.

"Thickness" has nothing to do with "left" or "right." It's entirely about whether or not you want to try to cram other things into the definition of libertarianism as you do with your "necessary preconditions" which openly violate that definition.


As far as the "liberal inclinations" you think you detect, think again. I'm a "thin" libertarian. 

Can somebody explain this to him?  Evidently I can't.

3 comments:

  1. Hmm. You announce that you are not a "thick" libertarian, then go on to establish beyond any reasonable doubt in the same paragraph that you're about as "thick" as it's possible to get.

    "Thickness" has nothing to do with "left" or "right." It's entirely about whether or not you want to try to cram other things into the definition of libertarianism as you do with your "necessary preconditions" which openly violate that definition.

    As far as the "liberal inclinations" you think you detect, think again. I'm a "thin" libertarian.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What the thicks are trying to do is to win by definition.

    The same thing has been done with the word "democracy". No matter how many elections are held or how fair the vote is its not a legitimate election unless is fits into the "liberal democracy" definition. The fact that the voters might not be liberal and don't want a liberal democracy is ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  3. http://shuin.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/higurashi-no-naku-koro-ni/

    It looks like Mion from Higurashi.

    ReplyDelete