The Faux Libertarian Brats.

There is no doubt I get crankier than usual whenever elections loom in the horizon. But I even admit that an eleven month pre-electoral crank is a bit much even for me. It is that I am sick of the so-called Libertarians roaming the webs out there.

Till last week I had the notion that Libertarians were mostly people whose platform was to scream a top of their lungs “It is my right to be sodomizing blindfolded goats while I drive my convertible 110 mph with a big fat joint in my mouth.”   Some friends indicated the error of my ways pointing me to the proper sources and I thank them for that, but you Libertarians have a huge Public Relations issue to resolve.

And yes, the Second Amendment should be the only permit required to carry a weapon, but we have not achieved that level yet and you acting like a prick about it is not going to help getting there any faster. And yes, Open Carry is your right also, but if you throw a temper tantrum when asked by a police officer, you are damaging the cause. And no, you are not living in a Police State no matter what your HBO Movie Of The Week pea brain says. And trust somebody who has been there, you really do not want to know the difference between an US LEO and a Police State Thug with a Badge.

I recently heard a podcast where the author was complaining about police harassment to Open Carry people and the example he gave was of why should somebody wearing a kilt and OC at 11:30 pm in a neighborhood where drugs are known to be trafficked should not be interviewed by police because he is not doing anything bad or something like that. Buddy, let me tell you something, if you are walking in front of my house at that time wearing a kilt and OC, rest assured that the side of your head will be painted by a red dot until I don’t see you anymore. And my neighborhood is a pretty quiet one.

Faux Libertarian Brats should start by doing some research: First, what the Libertarian Party stands for, then learn about life in general and about the other political movements, the Constitution, the legislative process and then learn to how to address other people if they want to transmit and educate them on the Libertarian principles. “Because it is my Right’ is not only a extremely weak explanation but makes you sound stupid. In fact, after hearing and reading some statement from some Faux Libertarians, the only difference between them and the Hippie/Anarchist/Occupy Wall Street movement is that they have a better understanding of the principles of hygiene.

More to come on this subject in a future post.

18 Replies to “The Faux Libertarian Brats.”

  1. And these are the people who want Ron Paul as our president. If he does win, Obama’s foreign policy gaffes will end up being something I wished we returned to.

    Libertarians may mean well, their execution, as you pointed out, is so out there no amounts of facepalming will express how much I feel. And if you try to point it out, some of them will become uncivil, calling you a hack or a tool or something.




    0



    0
  2. Oooo controversy, I love controversy!

    Till last week I had the notion that Libertarians were mostly people whose platform was to scream a top of their lungs “It is my right to be sodomizing blindfolded goats while I drive my convertible 110 mph with a big fat joint in my mouth.”

    Many of us who refer to ourselves as libertarians refer to these people as libertines. Libertine is a similar although notably different philosophy of libertarianism (it could be considered an offshoot).

    Faux Libertarian Brats should start by doing some research: First, what the Libertarian Party stands for

    A common misconception is that the Libertarian Party and libertarianism are the same. Libertarianism is a wide reaching philosophy with many differing views and beliefs. The Libertarian Party is comprised mostly of middle of the road libertarians, those who wish to see a return to minimal government as described in the Constitution. Other degrees exist including minarchists (more of an Ayn Rand philosophy, even though she hated libertarians) and anarcho-capitalists (Rothbard’s philosphy).

    Researching the Libertarian Party’s stances on various issues doesn’t cover the actual philosophy nor does it allow one to learn about different types of libertarianism.

    “Because it is my Right’ is not only a extremely weak explanation but makes you sound stupid.

    I agree wholeheartedly. Saying you are doing something because it’s your right doesn’t address the issue of what rights even are. Most libertarians believe in natural rights as opposed to government granted rights. On the opposite side of the spectrum most people believe in government granted rights. Saying “It’s my right” to most people is akin to saying “Because the government gives me permission.” Naturally the reaction of somebody who believes the government grants rights and opposes what you’re doing will want a new law taking away that permission. Therefore it does no good saying “It’s my right” as an explanation for doing something, you really need to explain why rights are and how your activity is actually a right by nature as opposed by a right granted by the government. For this you really have to start with the self-ownership axiom that is that foundation for most libertarian philosophy.

    Of course this would also requires the person proclaiming “It’s my right” to research libertarian philosophy instead of picking things they like and saying “Well I like this so it’s my right.”

    In fact, after hearing and reading some statement from some Faux Libertarians, the only difference between them and the …Anarchist…

    Libertarianism isn’t mutually exclusive to anarchism. Many people considered by most to be libertarian philosophers believe government was inherently violent and therefore undesirable. The works of Lysander Spooner, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Albert Jay Nock, Franz Oppenheimer, and of course Murray Rothbard all expressed this belief.

    With that said many left anarchists will launch into a fit of rage if you call anarcho-capitalists anarchists because they believe strongly that anarchism is a philosophy of eliminating all hierarchy from society whereas anarcho-capitalists believe in eliminating all legitimized coercion from society.

    More to come on this subject in a future post.

    Awesome. Controversial rant posts are the most fun to read and comment on.




    0



    0
    1. Yet I don’t see true Libertarians close to the Anarchists. They do want the smallest government footprint possible but not a total societal breakdown like the Anarchists.
      I see it this way: Libertarians want a wrecking crew tearing down Big Government floor by floor till only the first floor and the basement remain and the debris is taken away and properly discarded. Anarchists want the whole shit to blow up and screw where the debris lands…on on top of who.




      0



      0
      1. Yet I don’t see true Libertarians close to the Anarchists. They do want the smallest government footprint possible but not a total societal breakdown like the Anarchists.

        As there are many flavors of libertarian there are also many flavors of anarchism. While some anarchists feel smashing windows and tossing molotov cocktails is the way to incite revolution others believe the only way to achieve a stateless society is through education.

        Sometimes you get an Emma Goldman, who plotted to assassinate Henry Clay Frick to as propaganda of deed, and sometimes you get a Josiah Warren, who setup several businesses and helped found several societies around the concept of mutualism in the hopes of establishing a peaceful stateless society.

        Truth be told anarchism is a philosophy far more complicated than most people realize. Most people only see the reports on television about “anarchist” violence. Forgetting the fact that most of these reports fail to verify if the offenders are actually anarchists we are still left with reports that are horrible simplifications and do nothing to explain what anarchism is.

        I know many non-violent anarchists who have no desire to see society entirely destroyed and I know a copule of anarchists who want to start lobbing off the heads of capitalists in to town square. Truthfully the former are far more common than the latter but they don’t make for good ratings and therefore receive no coverage. Heck many who claim to be anarchists don’t know anything about the actual philosophy and use the label simply as a justification for acting on their darker desires.

        If there is one thing I’ve learned it’s that our general conceptions about various philosophical and political ideologies are gross simplifications. It’s kind of like when progressives say libertarians are selfish human beings who don’t care about the poor and unfortunate. What those progressive fail to realize is that libertarians generally care deeply about the poor and unfortunate but believe the best way to care for those unfortunate is through charity, mutual aid, and ensuring all are equal in the eyes of the law.




        0



        0
        1. And we get back to the original point: PR is the problem. The ones catching the attention are the ones who do not represent the movements.




          0



          0
          1. That is to be expected; a large proportion of the media doesn’t like conservatives or libertarians, and tries to make them look as bad as possible.




            0



            0
  3. Quote: “…rest assured that the side of your head will be painted by a red dot until I don’t see you anymore.”

    There is a big difference between being vigilant (which is what you just described) and active harassment (which is what cops are trained to do). If I walk down your sidewalk (a public right-of-way) wearing my kilt and carrying my side arm (or my battle rifle at port arms for that matter), I haven’t offended you or injured you in any way.

    Only a Control Freak thinks it wise to rush over and demand to know what I think I am doing, demand that I justify myself, demand that I seek HIS permission before I go about minding my own business.

    Are we free men, or are we subject to the arbitrary whims of others? What I have just described is not anarchy. It is liberty under the Law.




    0



    0
  4. So, let me get this straight.

    If I’m walking down the street, open carrying, but complying with the law, you’re going to see me, feel threatened and point a gun at me because I have a visible firearm?

    What precisely is the actual reasonable threat to your life that I present?
    I can see the threat that you’re presenting. Pray you never do this when there is s second person carrying, you might get shot for your troubles.

    Bonus Question, Which NYPD department did you work for?




    0



    0
    1. In front of my house at 11:30 pm while wearing a kilt and I don’t know you? You betcha! I’ll set aside the fact that for the most part OC is not legal in Florida.

      For all intents and purposes, you are a suspicious individual until proven otherwise. It might very well be your right to OC but it is my right to make sure no evil intent comes to my house. I don’t know you, sorry. You have to prove yourself to me, I am not in the business of betting my life on a stranger’s goodness of heart.

      And regarding your Bonus Question:




      0



      0
  5. I see your point Miguel. If someone is wearing a kilt outside my house carrying a firearm I’m going to be suspicious because it would be a first for me to see it. Therefore, I would act cautiously.

    I support a persons right to carry but it doesn’t mean I won’t treat some of those people with suspicion because, to be blunt, my life depends on it.

    As to Libertarians I refuse to label myself but find I am in agreement with a lot of libertarian ideas. Still, when it comes down to it, I prefer to call myself a member of the “free” party, as in free to make my decisions.




    0



    0
    1. And you hit a very important point: “it would be a first for me to see it.”

      That is my beef with some OC (thankfully very few) fanatics who apparently go out of their way to piss off cops. Their argument is “Well, it is the Law, it is my right so they HAVE to know it and suck it up.” No moron, they don’t necessarily know it and it is YOUR responsibility to act properly and avoid unnecessary stupid confrontations and incendiary statements. You would be making a greater contribution to OC if when stopped, you follow the instructions, be polite and when the initial contact with the cops is over and they are sure you are not some criminal or nutjob, then you politely engage them and inform them about OC.
      But that is TOO MUCH WORK for some or feel they shouldn’t be bothered with it. They like to reap the benefits but provide no help.
      Who knows how many CC people ended up tasting pavement or car finish when Concealed Carry came into effect? But most, instead of acting like brats figured out that it was a better alternative to solve the problem rather than acting like a whinny brat. And still after this many years, you have the chance to bump into an uninformed LEO who is gonna give you a hard time because he simply does not know/was not informed/trained.




      0



      0
  6. I’ve read through a significant amount of your articles and have never felt a need to comment until now. Great write up by Christopher Burg btw, very thoughtful.

    I’m guessing this is in response to a news story? If so, the link would be great now and, in future posts (you usually are great about providing sources). Without a link, I find myself lacking context and the ambiguity is too much to know if this is simply a rant against libertarians or about something that actually happened.

    I disagree, “because it is my right” should be the only justification needed. However, I do agree “because it is my right” is far to abstract and complicated a justification for most people, including many speaking it, to wrap their heads around properly. Unfortunately, as is common, what is ideal/what should be and what is realistic/what is, are not in agreement.




    0



    0
  7. I’ve met many “libertarians” who take it to the extreme. I’m a strong believer in the “right to swing your fist ends where the other guy’s nose begins.” But I’ve met people who lean towards “well then you shouldn’t have your nose there.” Ordered liberty is the goal.

    I think both points regarding the hypothetical kilt-wearing open carrier are valid. I work the night shift, and also live out in the country. As you can imagine, I don’t get much foot traffic outside the house; yet, it is perfectly legal to do so. Now, if I was about to pull out of my driveway and saw someone dressed in a kilt, or dressed in black, or dressed in a suit and tie, walking past the house, I’d be suspicious. For the simple fact that it is outside the norm, and vigilance is a good thing.

    I presume you are joking about pointing your gun at him, because of course you’d be violating a number of firearm safety laws without any justification towards a person who is at present no direct threat. You’d have every right to call the police to check it out, and I’d do the same thing. This is where we get into the gray area, because we must accept the fact that if we want to take midnight walks in womens’ clothing sporting our battle rifles, it will raise some eyebrows and invite police notice. If nothing is amiss, then nothing is amiss.

    This reminds me of the Professor Gates incident. I suppose some libertarians woudl argue that losing one’s keys and breaking in to one’s house through the window is perfectly legal, but it will invite notice and in an ordered society we must live with that.




    0



    0
    1. I presume you are joking about pointing your gun at him, because of course you’d be violating a number of firearm safety laws without any justification towards a person who is at present no direct threat.

      Of course I am kidding! I would keep my rifle at the Low Ready and be behind hard cover.




      0



      0

Comments are closed.