Thursday, July 7, 2016

Feedback, I Get Feedback!

Awhile back, I started off with this quibcag, and got the following reaction to it on one of those social media sites:

Xenophanes: Does this mean that libertarians should be for wars on foriegn soil? I see the problem but don't understand why keeping their violance and extremism in their own borders isn't the solution that is best for us, yes our borders should be well enough to just keep the problems out, but I believe that they should have the freedom to kill each other, so long as it doesn't involve us.

Pythagoras: It all depends on the circumstances prevailing in each instance, which is why we need a little more realism and a little less ideology in these matters.

Hypatia: It's not just about "violence and extremism". It's about GLOBALISM. Islam and Communism are GLOBALIST ideologies. If we concerned ourselves only with our own borders and what was happening inside them, then either Islam or Communism would eventually succeed in taking control of the governments of the 95% of the world that isn't within our borders. When that happens, do you really think they'd be content to stop there? Of course not. They'd launch a full-scale war, the USA against the rest of the world, and although the US military can kick mind-blowing amounts of ass, we'd never win. Preventing that war will require starting other, smaller ones.
The above is very instructive. First we have a very rational evaluation of the ability of libertarianism in its present state to counter the worldwide threat of Islam and communism, which concludes that libertarianism needs to be retooled to become an effective counter to the spread of those ideologies. Basically, stepping back, we can say that the prevailing ideologies of the Western World, liberalism and neoconservatism, have shown themselves to be unable or unwilling effectively to oppose Islam and communism, so that leaves libertarianism to do the opposing. And, in its present state, it's also unable/unwilling to do so. Xenophanes' reaction is what you'd expect from a libertarian. It faithfully reflects two libertarian principles — mind our own business and the nonaggression principle (pretty much the same thing, really) — which, in theory, are excellent principles, and also is typically libertarian in its placing theory above practicality. In fact, it reminds me of the Vietnam War mindset, which more or less stated that we, the good guys, will follow all the rules, and, for example, will not cross the Cambodian border to take out VC bases, because crossing a neutral power's border is illegal, yadda yadda yadda. Meanwhile, the VC used Cambodia as a "safe space." That, and a bunch of nonsense just like it, ensured that we lost the war. Yes, I'm that old and I was in the Army at the time, and it still rubs me the wrong way.

Then Pythagoras chimes in, trying gingerly to point out diplomatically what I just wrote, more or less, that following self-defeating rules is, well, self-defeating. He's right, but his reply isn't exactly a rallying cry.

Hypatia's answer, on the other hand, is a rallying cry. She describes the nature of the enemy accurately as "globalist," meaning that neither communism nor Islam is going to be content to exercise domination in its own territory. Both ideologies call for control of all territory, and neither has any interest in, or respect for, any rules of engagement the good guys might come up with. Just as in the Vietnam conflict, the enemy is delighted to see the good guys handicap themselves with Marquess of Queensbury rules while they follow the Ninja code of conduct, i. e., whatever works. 

At this point in time, liberals, neocons, and Queensbury libertarians can safely blather on about the rules, precisely because they're protected by massive military establishments, especially American ones, which are so damn powerful that even following the rules don't weaken them enough that the enemy can take over just yet, as the second quibcag suggests.

Elsewhere in the socialmediasphere, this quibcag went up and got the following reaction from yet another "libertarian," [link] who really stretches the "socially liberal" part:

Thermippos: Is this meant to be satirical? 

Are we reuniting the third reich?

Pythagoras: Hm? Oh, I see. Any acknowledgement of the bloody obvious is a form of Naziism now. Very clever.

Thermippos: "power to be held primarily by men of anglo and some German extraction"
I cant quite figure out if this is bigoted, sexist, racist, offensive, stupid, ignorant or victimizes an entire demographic of people.

Sure doesnt speak too highly of "libertarian-ish gatherings"

Pythagoras: Well, you've at least made an exhaustive list of all the trendy liberal buzz words that can be used in lieu of an actual argument  It's pretty simple, really. Set up a libertarian order run by any _other_ category of people and it's going to fall apart or move in the authoritarian direction pretty fast. With your Anglos with a dash of Germans, it has a chance, at least.
Pythagoras is a little more combative in this one. And I include it mainly to demonstrate that "libertarians" like Thermippos have been thoroughly marinated in the liberal narrative, to the extent that his set of buzz words are indistinguishable from those of a typical liberal, and to him, the implicit concept of the equality of all human groups is so sacred and unquestionable that any deviation from it calls not for logical refutation, but rather for a string of calumnious pejoratives like "bigoted, sexist, racist, offensive, stupid, ignorant or victimizes an entire demographic of people."

I've said this before, but it's worth repeating: Back in the days when libertarianism was formulating itself, the phrase "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" actually made sense. But "socially liberal," over the years, has changed its meaning. It used to mean "tolerant," basically, but now it means, frankly, "politically correct," and it requires that one must believe in the dogma that all human groups are totally equal in capacity and temperament, which is absurd and unscientific as you can get, and that, moreover, one can and should be shunned and exiled and punished in any number of ways for deviating from it. Recently, it's been extended to require that we refer to Bradley Manning as "she," or again, we be cast out and forever called "not libertarian."
Quibcags: Lots of them today. Number one I've used before, of course, but the illustrations are the little communist girl, ubiquitous on the net, and one of the girls from K-On! (けいおん! Keion!), dressed up as an ISIS jihadi. Number two looks like a couple more K-On! (けいおん! Keion!)  girls.
The third is illustrated by the Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア) mascots for England and Germany. The last is our science girl, Rika Shiguma of Haganai (はがない),


  1. The problem with libertarianism, is that for it to survive, it must be militant like the Revolutionary War. Paine, Jefferson, and Adams could make great dialectical and rhetorical arguments, but liberty was achieved by cannon and bullets.

    They say they love liberty but what lengths will they go to defend it?

    You find few theory libertarians who even mention owning a firearm.

    Communism and Islam are aggressive and invasive. Letting them in will require a lot of enforcement when the NAP is constantly violated, so do you evict them or accept that you will have both lots of crime and enforcement?

    There is one caution - there are some rules you must play by lest you become worse than your enemy. You are justified meeting any aggression, but there are still the lines of the "just war". The devil wins if you enlist in his army - all war in and from hell is "friendly fire". You can't turn principles on and off. They may be too wide or narrow, so might need to be reconsidered, but never abandoned for convenience.

  2. I am not happy with libertarian-ism as a movement. They had some good thinkers and writers. Now it seems to have gone off the rails.

  3. Libertarianism is dead, thankfully.