Monday, September 29, 2014

Matt Bailey Says What He Means, And Means What He Says.

I was having a frustrating discussion with a libertarian who insists that freedom is some sort of universal notion among mankind, and that it's jingoistic of me to want to keep freedom-blind third worlders from marching in and destroying any chance of freedom in the future. You tell your average Papuan backwoods guy that he has freedom, and the thinks that means he can eat your head and get away with it.

Well, obviously, freedom is a condition, not some Platonic spooky idea hovering in the air (Klaus Kinsky can pontificate all he wants to in his railroad car, he still has chains on), and Matt Bailey hopped in to explain what the origin of freedom really is:

"Your freedom absolutely is up for vote, no matter how hateful that fact may be. The crap we have exists because the voters tolerate it. By contrast, the level of firearms freedom we have in America compared to most of the Western world exists because Americans voters have shown a tendency to vote against politicians who tread on the 2nd Amendment TOO egregiously. The voters of several states have made themselves somewhat freer to smoke weed. The laws you have to put up with absolutely will be effected by what the majority of the people around you favor, or at least or willing to put up with. If the majority of those people favor more statism, you will get more statism. Therefore, any demographic shift that increases the population of those with anti-libertarian leanings pretty inevitably leads more statism." — Matt Bailey
That pretty much sums that up for me. It's comical when somebody prances around "proving" that national boundaries are bogus because "borders are imaginary," and then follows up with the notion that freedom is a universal concrete thing, implied by Planck's Constant, or something. Nope, both are social constructs, and very important ones indeed.
Quibcag: Mouri Ran, of Detective Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン), explains natural-rights theory to a deep thinker.

1 comment:

  1. I'm going to prance around for a while because borders are imaginary. Anything which has no physical reality is by definition imaginary. As a social construct they are effective as a political tool and may in fact be useful but that's a different matter - they are not real. People act as if they are but the only means of detecting a border is by the way people behave, ie someone in uniform asking for documents. If those people weren't there, who would know that the border was? A yes vote in Scotland wouldn't have created a forcefield, bouncing the English away - just more forms to fill out as something which wasn't there yesterday is here today even though you can't see it.
    Does freedom exist or not? You don't need to ask- a beetle in a matchbox has no notion of a social constuct but even a cursory examination will reveal that he wants out.
    I agree with you about the rest. We get the society we are prepared to tolerate and will do so, as history tells us, until our dissatisfaction exceeds our fear of authority.