Yesterday Tyler Preston finally uploaded a video that I’ve been waiting on: Questions that Skeptics have for Anarcho-Capitalists. I did my initial reply only to discover, after I’d converted the videos and was starting to split them into smaller, digestible chunks, that my recording software recorded my Line-In, which is my guitar, and not my microphone. One hour, 47 minutes, and 23 seconds of organic, freeform response were lost. I redid the entire thing, but that was okay because it gave me time to pull together some resources and provide evidence.
This led me to Part 3, where I kinda snapped at these absurd and asinine questions.
The questions have either been thoroughly debunked as nonsense, or are entirely irrelevant to the question at hand. Like when someone asked how we will protect our borders if we’re invaded in Part 2. This is a bit of both, actually–it’s nonsense and irrelevant. There is no national border to an anarcho-capitalist society, and there’s definitely no such thing as an anarcho-capitalist country. That someone would even ask the question “How would you protect your borders in an anarcho-capitalist country” shows a fundamental lack of understanding regarding what we’re discussing, just like when someone said that the world’s problems are the result of “unregulated, fascist capitalists.”
What kind of answer do you expect when you ask what I plan to do when the Devil attacks God? Or what kind of answer do you expect when I’m asked to explain why unicorns smell like yellow. It’s not even wrong. There’s just not much of a way to coherently answer that question. The best that can be done is to explain why the question isn’t even wrong.
As I said, this was when the entire thing began getting under my skin, though I handled it pretty well. As I go on to explain in part 3, how is this any different from Christians demanding to know why we believe a tornado ripping through a junkyard would produce a 747? It’s not. It’s exactly the same sort of thing, asking us to explain an intentionally-misconstrued straw man.
I also just uploaded Part 4, but 5 and 6 will be done this evening, as I have to get some work done. Part 4 contains a few clarifications and a little bit of digression at the beginning, things that needed to be said but that I didn’t get around to saying. I also reiterated my position and said that I cannot back down on the assertion that they are just like theists asking about the moon dust, and henceforth I will refer to all such questions and “criticisms” as Moon Dust Arguments.
This morning my employer confirmed the suspicions that I wrote about yesterday. His reply was exactly what I had expected, and had been delayed for exactly the reasons that I expected. Like my sister, he expects me to “just deal with it” and to just be trapped in the box out of pragmatism.
But I will not.
I will not do it again. That is no way to live.
Like my sister assumed, he assumes that I will back down because I have to have a place to live, and he’s not wrong. I don’t make enough money to afford anywhere else. I live in rural Mississippi and am basically a serf to this employer; it doesn’t even appear to be by accident that I don’t make enough money to do other things, you know? I’ve talked about that before, and I’ll provide the link here.
This situation is very much a “You’ll hide the fact that you’re transgender from my son, or you’ll be kicked out, and I don’t pay you enough for you to live elsewhere, so suck it up and put yourself back in the box.”
How can I take it any other way?
It is irrelevant that he is a bit nicer about it than that, and that he hasn’t overtly said that, but that is what he is saying nonetheless. Look at the situation more closely, and keep in mind that I’ve spent the last year trying to get a different and better job. There just aren’t any here in rural Mississippi; I need money to leave, and I need to leave in order to make money. And now I am facing a situation where my employer is threatening that I will be kicked out if I continue openly being transgender, and so I must get back in the closet because he, my employer, doesn’t pay me enough for me to do anything else.
Though it was not overtly said, the message is clear. If his son moves into the house in question, he expects me to get back in the box. He doesn’t seem to have grasped what I meant when I said that I will not be put back in the box. Have you ever seen the film The Man in the Iron Mask? Leonardo Di Caprio gives a stunning performance, and at one point he cries, “No, kill me if you must, but do not make me wear that mask again.”
I am being told to wear the mask again.
What consequences will result from this decision? Terrible ones. Unemployment, homelessness. Yet the alternative is one that I cannot face. I would sooner die. I have lived that life before, trapped in a small box–then a bedroom–and not even allowed to go to the bathroom. I wasn’t even able to be me until after my nephew had gone to sleep because, no matter how many times I berated him, he had the lamentable habit of barging into my bedroom without knocking. My sister and her husband would have thrown me out then and there if her son had walked in on me as me, and I couldn’t handle that. And even then, once they were gone to bed, I was forced to stay in my bedroom. I couldn’t go to the kitchen or bathroom. If one of them woke up and saw me, they’d have thrown me out.
This is the same situation, and I’ve been here before. The box in which I will be trapped is bigger, but I will be trapped nonetheless. Did I leave something important in my car? Uh-oh, better change clothes completely. Can’t just walk outside and get my stuff out of my car. Do I need to do laundry? Better hope he doesn’t open the dryer or anything. Plus, for complex reasons I don’t feel like getting into, I bathe in this house that we’re talking about. I use the freezer in this house that we’re talking about. If all this strikes you as bizarre, read the post I linked above.
It was actually that house that I was renting in the first place. But the owners keep a bunch of ceramic knick-knacks and other shit in there, and my cats broke one of them. They were supposed to come and remove their shit, but never did, and they ultimately asked me to move into the other place, which was fine, for the most part. I still have free access to the other place–I do my laundry there, I freeze my ice there, I bathe there, I park my car in its garage, because it’s like fifty feet from where I do live.
I knew as soon as I received the initial email Sunday that this was going to be bad, because it all hinges on one thing: his son’s tolerance, or lack of, for transgender people. It’s hard to believe that this guy who has known me for 5 or 6 years would so callously see to it that I’m kicked out, even though it wouldn’t be doing him a damned bit of harm, but I already know from experience… that it doesn’t matter.
My own sister, someone I have known my entire life (obviously), kicked me out for it. I have no delusions that his son will be more reasonable, more open, and more understanding. The fact that he’s known me for years and knows me to be, at the very least, an alright person, will count for nothing.
It’s not even “being transgender” that people have a problem with.
Think about it. How many times have you seen a girl wearing men’s clothes without it being a problem? Just the other day at a client’s, there was a girl working there who was clearly wearing men’s clothes, and no one looked twice at her about it.
It’s not crossdressing or transgenderism that people get pissed off about.
Even here in bum-fucked Mississippi, it’s totally acceptable for a girl to wear guys’ clothes. In fact, it’s pretty common–probably more common here than in other parts of the country. But if a guy is caught wearing girls’ clothes… It’s life-threatening. At the very least, he’ll be attacked.
And that’s the problem here. So many of these people know me as a guy. They won’t see Aria and go on about their business. They’ll see this guy that they see every other day wearing women’s clothes. Even though they wouldn’t care in the slightest if ” a girl they see every other day” was wearing men’s clothes, I would not be so lucky.
I’m honestly not sure what to do here. I can’t go back in the box, and I won’t. My employer’s latest email insists that I’m jumping the gun a bit, but I have been down this road before. His gut reaction is the correct one, I know from experience.
When I first realized I had to start coming out to people as transgender, I was torn about my sister. My gut told me that she would flip out, and a friend of mine who knew her very well agreed. As I continued pondering it, however, I became convinced that I was freaking out over nothing. She already knew for the most part–it was an unspoken secret. And she was my sister–together, she and I had gone through alllllllll that bullshit:
And this one:
Yes, we went through a ton of bullshit, and all that is just the tip of the iceberg. It’s enough for me to fill an entire book that I’m calling Dancing in Hellfire and am trying to find an agent for. God, having that book published would alleviate all of these problems, would easily provide me with the means to move to Vegas and escape this nightmare where shit is constantly hanging over my head, where I’m always in danger.
I convinced myself that she wouldn’t care. So I told her. She said she was fine with it, but that she’d have to ask her husband whether I could simply be me as I paid them rent each fucking month. Weeks passed. I finally asked again. She said she hadn’t. More weeks passed, and I finally asked again. She said that he had a problem with it. She lied, of course, and I knew that she would: it was never her husband (who had once lived with a cross-dresser) who had a problem with it. It was her, and she used her husband as a convenient excuse.
Finally I laid it all out for them in a letter, informing them that I was proceeding with it, and that they could accept it, or not. It was then that I received that fucked up text message from my sister:
So oh, yes. I’ve been down this road before, and unless I’m able to move to Vegas this time, I will end up going down this road again. It’s so much easier for people to reject me than to confront their own discomfort, their own disdain for feminization, and their own cognitive dissonance.
I’m so tired.
I just want to be left to live, work, and love in peace. Why is that so goddamned much to ask? Everyone else is allowed to do it. But no, because I choose to wear women’s clothes and present myself as a woman, I’m not allowed those basic things.
Why can’t I wear the shirts I want to wear, the jeans I want to wear, and the shoes I want to wear? Why can’t I present the face that I want? Men can grow beards if they want; men can grow mustaches if they want. But I can’t wear makeup? Why can’t I wear my hair a certain way? Everyone else can. Everyone else can wear the shirts they like, the jeans they like, the shoes they like.
It’s not a matter of courage. There is nothing to be gained by presenting myself as a female permanently here in Mississippi. It would leave me unemployed, homeless, and starving to death very quickly, and that is if someone didn’t attack me and kill me before those other circumstances started falling on me. It wouldn’t be “courageous” to present myself as a female all the time here, because everyone here has known me as a male. You can see from my videos that I’m passable, for the most part. Yet I’ll never be passable to the people who have always known me as a male. While my friends are accepting and don’t give a shit, that doesn’t apply to the random people who see me around town.
As I pointed out previously, my situation here in Mississippi is not good, and I’m hardly more than a serf. My landlord is my employer’s father, and I’m not going to go into that whole situation again–you can click that link for the details–but my landlord does not know that I’m transgender. He suspects it, though, and there’s no real indication that it’s a problem–he just hasn’t seen it or dealt with it.
My employer has also not seen it, but he ostensibly doesn’t have a problem with it, and has even said he’d like to meet me. He stumbles around the terminology as much as you’d expect someone to, and that’s my biggest issue with the whole transgender thing. The terminology is absurdly clunky. However, it’s of note that he hasn’t met me–despite the initial conversations happening six months ago–and it’s always noticeably awkward when the subject is brought up.
Sunday night he emailed me this.
The house in question is literally within a hundred feet of where I live; it is on the same property. In fact, it’s so close that I use its garage to park my car under, and it’s a short walk from there to where I live. It’s seriously like right there. If I look out my bedroom window, it’s just… right there, about fifty feet away.
I replied politely and firmly, but making my position clear.
Seems like the simplest way to handle it would be to let him know I’m transgender. It will become obvious, no matter how unobservant he is. Either the cats will look out the window and pull the curtain open just at the wrong time or he’ll pop open the dryer or I’ll drop a bra while loading the dryer and not notice until I go to retrieve my dry clothes–who knows. Living with someone at that proximity, though, it is inevitable. Then it becomes an awkward, uncomfortable elephant in the room, and I don’t maintain it as a secret any longer anyway. It’s more like how I’m an atheist–I’m actually rather upfront about it, but I still know better than to tell the Good ole boys at Perimeter than I’m an atheist, so I simply don’t tell them.
It’s also inevitable because I learned today as I got a lot of really weird looks that boobs are visible beneath my t-shirt. While I knew I could no longer wear “wifebeaters,” I also can’t just throw on a t-shirt any longer.
If he wants, I’d bet my grandmother can get him a dorm. That’s not related to the preceding paragraphs. But she worked at ________for most of her life. She easily got my sister into the “good” dorm. ________ wouldn’t have wanted one of the dorms anyway unless he’s an athlete. They’d have put him in ___________, which is filled with loud, obnoxious, 18 year old people. I’ve delivered pizzas there; you couldn’t fucking pay me to live in that dorm. I’d be homeless before I did that.
More pursuant to the first two paragraphs, I live in an almost constant state of “Did I remember to…” already. I’m almost constantly going over mental checklists, to the point that I nearly freaked out walking into [a client’s] the other day because I suddenly thought I was wearing a female shirt (I have no idea why I thought that–it was an ordinary t-shirt). But that kind of thing is constantly going through my mind. “Did I remove nail polish? Did I remove eyeliner? Is mascara still there? Am I wearing the right clothes? Am I wearing the right flip-flops (yes, I have two pair, and yes, one pair is pink with flowers on them)?” Under most circumstances, I’m in a state that could best be described as “between genders.”
And all this assumes that it wouldn’t be a problem for ______, though I’m obviously a pretty private person myself. Damn. Too many variables.
I was polite, but firm, in my statement that this is not something that I hide. Toward the end, as I lived with my sister, I was forced to hide in my bedroom all night every night. The entire reason that my living there came to a head was my being transgender and her unwillingness to “allow” it. So I was forced, despite paying tons of money each month in rent, to cower in my room all night every night, always ready to quickly change clothes when my nephew came and knocked on my door and barged in without waiting for an answer.
I simply will not do that again.
I don’t care if his son finds it awkward and uncomfortable. His son can either stay someplace else, or he can throw the gauntlet down to his landlord that I make him uncomfortable, and I can be forced to move. I do not care which happens, but under no circumstances will I cower in my house with the curtains drawn, not allowed to go outside at certain times of day because he’s home or whatever. I simply will not do it.
I am already enough of a prisoner here in Mississippi. There are already many places that I cannot go. I have to constantly be on guard, because too many people would recognize “my male identity” within my female one, and, yes, our clients would stop working with me over that, and the reality is that I need that money.
This would likely place the landlord in the position of having to choose between his grandson and a loyal tenant who has been living here for 8 months. I have no doubt that I’ll be told to leave. It’s happened before, and it will happen again.
There is very good reason to believe that the kid in question will not be okay with any of this. He’s evidently vehemently racist, according to his dad, and I know that his mom takes issue with me being transgender:
Of course, “more later” never came, though I explicitly asked him twice.
The same thing has happened here. He has not replied to my response. When I texted yesterday to find out if he was going to be staying down here last night, four hours passed before I got a response via text message. For four hours, I languished in a state that could best be described as “between genders” (primarily because my hair isn’t very long yet) trying to figure out whether it was safe to just be myself. That is a condition that will become permanent with a neighbor living in such proximity to me.
I talked with my landlord briefly this morning, and he suggested it’s a foregone conclusion that the guy will be living there.
I do appreciate the awkward situation my employer is in. He’s the “gatekeeper,” so to speak, but that’s a responsibility that he chose when he directly asked the question and I answered. I’ve since repeatedly made it clear that I do not live in secret any longer. I will go out in a heartbeat as my true self, and people can deal with it or not. I do not exist on their terms.
This is, however, his son, and my landlord’s grandson. That only raises the awkwardness of the situation.
And I was not the one who put us in this situation. I will not suffer for it. I will not be made into a recluse again.
I’ve been upfront and clear that I will not let this remain a secret or an elephant in the room. The guy can deal with it, or not. But I will not allow him to hide from it, because I will not hide from him.
But I’m not kidding myself.
I know how this will go down.
I’ve been down this road before, after all, with my own sister.se.
The state, I have often said, is merely a type of government. Though I do occasionally use “government” and “the state” interchangeably, it is generally because I grow weary of constantly saying “the state… the state… the state…” or because it helps a non-anarchist (one would say “statist” here most of the time, but I don’t believe that most people are statists–I believe they just haven’t quite thought about what they’re saying) understand what I’m saying.
This is an important distinction, though, because… just take a moment to process all the things that govern your behavior:
the need to breathe
the need to eat
the need to drink water
the desire to procreate
the desire to have sex
the desire to be entertained
… and many, many more.
All of these things, ipso facto, govern your behavior, and they govern my behavior. They govern the behavior of every animal on our planet, to varying degrees. Who can say that my cats are not governed partially by the desire to be entertained? I would ask you to re-evaluate that claim when they are doing aerobics and acrobatics across my kitchen.
I apologize the central line is crooked. Evidently, my television isn’t level.
There is certainly a hierarchy to these governments, as we all know intuitively, whether we have stopped to consider it or not. A person’s desire to have sex will not be considered until the person is not starving to death or suffocating. Obvious truisms, of course, yet they are of critical importance to understanding the nature of the state.
As Rothbard wrote in Anatomy of the State:
Once a state has been established, the problem of the ruling group or “caste” is how to maintain their rule. While force is their modus operandi, their basic and long-run problem is ideological. For in order to continue in office, any government (not simply a “democratic” one) must have the support of the majority of its subjects. This support, it must be noted, need not be active enthusiasm; it may well be passive resignation as if to an inevitable law of nature. But support in the sense of acceptance of some sort it must be, else the minority of state rulers would eventually be outweighed by the active resistance of the majority of the public. Since predation must be supported out of the surplus of production, it is necessarily true that the class constituting the state–the full-time bureaucracy–must be a rather small minority…
We see in these two ideas a similar pattern: until basic needs are met, something else extraneous to those needs cannot occur. Until a person’s need for air, food, and water is met, the individual will care nothing for entertainment or casual sex, not even with the most beautiful of women or sexiest of men. Again, this is another obvious truism: as a person nears starvation, the value that they place in food will increase exponentially; as they approach death, the value placed onto food will approach infinity. In the fraction of a second just before suffocating, the value that a person would place on air (that is: what they are willing to pay to acquire air) would be infinite, to the extent that they’d be willing, in that moment, to consign their entire lives to sexual slavery and barbaric torture to get a gasp of air. Horrific though that idea is, it is nonetheless true.
Now, all of this is rather important, because the state consists of a parasitic caste that sucks off the excesses and surpluses of society and appropriates them for its own ends. We like to think that this isn’t true, and that all of our tax dollars and state-confiscated resources are being used for the betterment of society, but such naive idealism has no place in a serious conversation.
This, in purely economic terms, lowers the supply of resources available to a society, making the entire society collectively poorer, even if the scope is felt only by certain individuals who are overly taxed. Yet again, this is an obvious truism. If the total “resources” of a society equals 100 and they are divided among society’s 1,000 members (however evenly or unevenly), and a parasitic caste siphons of 6 of those resources for their own use (however they justify it), then society is suddenly left with 94 to divide among its members. If the parasitic caste consisted of 6% of society (e.g., there were 60 parasites), then this would amount to socialism by force: “We want what you have to divide among ourselves.”
It may seem that I’m jumping the gun a bit here by defining the state as a bunch of parasites sucking society dry. I assure you: I’m not. This is ground that I’ve already covered (and that countless others have covered), and I’m not interested in re-writing the same article over and over.
If you dispute the equivalence of the state to a parasitic caste that relies primarily on force, violence, and coercion to achieve its ends, then the above podcast would be a good place to start. An even better place to start would be Murray Rothbard’s Anatomy of the State, one of the finest collections of essays dealing with the nature of the state that has ever been compiled. To quote one passage:
The great German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer pointed out that there are two mutually exclusive ways of acquiring wealth; one, the above way of production and exchange, he called the “economic means.” The other way is simpler in that it does not require productivity; it is the way of seizures of another’s goods or services by the use of force and violence. This is the method of one-sided confiscation, of theft of the property of others. This is the method which Oppenheimer termed “the political means” to wealth… The “political means” siphons production off to a parasitic and destructive individual or group; and this siphoning not only subtracts from the number producing, but also lowers the producer’s incentive to produce beyond his own subsistence… The state, in the words of Oppenheimer, is the “organization of the political means.”
Individuals are governed primarily by the need to survive, and this governance leads them to productivity. In order to secure their own survival, it is recognized as best to generate a surplus. The fools who grew only enough crops to survive died out in the fiery trials of human history, as any complication to the harvest rendered their deaths inevitable. “I grew only enough food to survive, and mildew destroyed some of it” leads to a slow and painful death. When the ancient villager went to the water source, they were not merely content to dip their hands into it and have a drink; they brought with them a jug, to collect more than they immediately needed, producing a surplus of resources that they could later call upon, if need be.
This is the mechanism of capitalism, the concept of taking resources and putting some into savings. Perhaps the villager draws five gallons of water each day, yet consumes only four gallons. After a year of doing this, the villager will have a surplus of some 365 gallons of water–profits, we would call these under most circumstances. You may prefer dividends, gains, or whatever term, but the basic idea is the same. The fool who brought back only enough water to survive the day died at the first calamity. The wise man who saved became wealthy. Sure, this wealth is measured in water rather than dollars, but the process is still the same.
To return to our fool, what if the village elder, being too old to go to the water source himself, decrees that every villager must surrender a cup of water to him each day? Again, the fool obviously dies (it is important to remember that we are operating on the idea that the fool takes exactly as much water he needs, and not a drop more) for the endemic parasitism of the ruling caste.
“But the elder is old,” some people might argue. “Surely it’s the village’s responsibility to continue caring for him? We are not just animals–we do not abandon our elderly!”
This is a fine argument, but there is a problem. We have here killed one person to save the life of another. Some people might argue, “But the fool should have brought back more water than he needed.” That’s probably true. However, the same could be said of the elder. If he had, as a young man, brought back more water than he needed–if he had brought back an extra gallon each day, then by the time he reached the age where he could no longer make the journey to the water source, he would have plenty of water to carry him through to the end of his life. The same admonition of the fool applies to the elder: they should both have taken more than they immediately needed.
This argument also ignores the fact that this elder probably has some family. Is it not the responsibility of his family to provide him with what he needs, if he is to dedicate his life to what must be called “intellectualism”? Surely before the elder decided to dedicate his life to the pursuit of ideas, he would have done something to ensure that he would be taken care of, since he would be producing nothing?
Indeed, this basic question is likely how we ended up with the state in the first place. Some people set themselves up as wise, intelligent people who were capable of putting their considerable intellectual faculties to use in bettering the whole village, but doing so meant that they would be unable to spend their time working in the fields and making trips to the water source. This wouldn’t always be the case, as there is plenty of reason to believe that the state came into existence by way of force and violence, rather than by intellectuals hoodwinking societies, but it’s not impossible to fathom that intellectuals presented themselves as our saviors, if only we would give them the power to do things for the betterment of us all, and would pay them in their services by providing them with the resources they needed to survive.
It was just a happy coincidence that we “paid” them far more than they needed, as they cut into our surpluses to generate their own.
It can be difficult to accept that we are ruled by a bunch of parasites who subtract from our resources to add to their own, who use force, violence, and coercion to avail themselves of our property and resources, and who hide behind the mask of doing things to better the whole of society. It may even be true that some of the things they’ve done have helped society.
If necessity is the mother of invention, though, it should be obvious that the state will hardly invent anything, and that the only things it will invent will almost universally be related to the military. It should be no surprise then, that the majority of the American government’s inventions have been for the military and by the military, as they invent newer, bigger, and better ways of killing people en masse. Why should the state invent the telephone, the personal computer, the smartphone, a search engine, or any of these other things? The state doesn’t need to, not to ensure its own continued existence and continued prosperity.
No, if the state wants to ensure its continued existence and prosperity, then necessity dictates that it will invent new weapons, new ways of applying military force, and new ways of securing its holds on a population. Lo and behold, that is precisely what the American Government does. Why did you think that 57% of all money spent by the U.S. government is used on the military? As they say, “necessity is the mother of invention.” And what does the state need?
A way to make us bow when we say “Enough is enough.”
The State’s Interaction With Other Governments
The state wants to maintain its monopolies, there is no doubt of that. How does the state do this? By usurping survivalism, by placing itself above the other governments that govern you. Though you may need to avoid starvation, that is not the only concern when you go to hunt for your dinner. Instead, you are at least equally motivated by the reality that the state is in charge of you.
If suddenly you are fired from your job and destitute, for whatever reason, and need to hunt in order to eat, you’d better hope that the state doesn’t send one of its many footsoldiers to find you. You would be violating the state’s laws, of course. The state requires you to have a license, and you can’t afford that if you don’t have any money. Your need to eat has been overruled by the state. The Government of Food has been superseded by the Government of the State. Survival itself has been undermined by the state.
If you shoot a fourth deer, you are violating yet more of the state’s laws. The state does not care that you otherwise would have starved, because it reigns supreme over other forms of government. The government that is your need to eat must bow to the state’s demands, not vice versa.
You cannot create an Artesian Well on your property to avoid dying of dehydration; you cannot even collect rainwater in most American territories (it should be apparent why I used “territories” here). Neither can you just hop on down the local reservoir with a bucket. Once again, the other governments that govern you have been undermined, superseded, and overruled by the state. The state does not acquiesce to the reality that you need water to survive; instead, you must acquire water to survive within the framework of the laws laid down by the state.
Your very survival is undermined by the state. You are not allowed to do whatever is necessary to secure your continued existence, because the state has claimed ownership of everything that does not belong to individuals. It is a fact of extreme significance that every acre of land in the United States belongs to someone. Most often, the owner of these lands is the state, not individuals. Here in backwater Mississippi, I am surrounded by acres upon acres of land that belong to no one, but for which I will be arrested if I dare fish upon, hunt upon, or even walk upon. I could petition neighbors to allow me to walk, hunt, and fish their lands, to be allowed to draw water from the ponds in their backyards, and so on–I cannot petition the state for these things. And if I can, then it requires money, and must be done according to parameters that they set.
On the surface, that seems no different from my neighbor saying, “Yes, you can walk on my land, but you can’t hunt on it,” or something similar. Except that the Federal Government owns 28% of all land in the United States, a figure which does not include land owned by state governments. And when we remember that the state is a caste of parasites, it becomes positively alarming that they have taken hold of more than 1 in 4 acres of land in the nation. These parasites are extraordinarily wealthy, and the use the canals of government bureaucracy to obfuscate that basic fact.
Rather than being as obvious as taking 30,000 acres and putting themselves a house on it, state officials instead sell that land to Monsanto or some other monopolistic corporation. This feeds money into the state, of course, at the expense of some land, but the exchange does not typically stop there. Afterward or before, Monsanto may pay the state official $350,000 to give a speech at their company dinner. In more extreme cases, the state official may leave public office and begin working for Monsanto, where they’ll earn millions of dollars each year as “consultants” who are required to do nothing.
This is how aspartame was legalized, though the FDA had ruled it a poison initially. It should be a cause of concern for all Americans that the FDA ruled it as a poison for decades. Then the company that owned its patent presented it again to the FDA, and it was suddenly ruled acceptable. Afterward, the FDA chairman retired from public service… and went on to work for the very same company that held the patents on aspartame, where he was paid a ridiculously high salary and given a cushy job in exchange for his agreement to effectively poison the American population.
Look no further than the Clinton Foundation, which has curried favors across the globe on behalf of American corporations, taking huge “speaking fees” in exchange for their negotiation of contracts between American corporations and foreign states. Just look at what the Clinton Foundation did to Haiti. There is a reason that poor Haitians despise the Clintons. Information on how badly the Clintons fucked Haiti is widely available and reported even in the mainstream press, though the MSM decries it generally as “accidental” and “unfortunate,” rather than a systematic failure that follows the Clinton Global Initiative across the planet.
There is much obfuscation of this reality, but it does us no good to deny it.
That rather delicious comment was posted as a comment to my latest video, 7 Reasons To Vote For Gary Johnson:
Even though I addressed this guy’s comment literally in the video that he commented, I’m going to do it again, because I enjoy banging my head on brick walls that I know will break my skull before I penetrate the barricade. So, without further adieu, what the fuck is this guy talking about?
Gary only polling at 10% because Gary Isn’t a True libertarian is also speculation same as McAfee polling at 40% because he is a true Libertarian.
Yes, I pointed that out in the video. That was seriously the entire point that I was driving at. I explicitly said in the video that it’s just baseless speculation to say that McAfee would be polling at 40% by now. This is not the first time I’ve had to tell someone in the past few days that I’m a few steps ahead of them, but yes, dude, I’m a few steps ahead of you here. I said that. I explicitly said that. You’ll find it in Reason #5. Your attempt to undermine my statement is null, because I already undermined my own statement.
McAfee would have been put away by the media as a crazy nut job even worse then Ron Paul was you must know that right?
What an interesting thing to say in an election cycle that gave us Donald Trump, who has spent the better part of the past year being crucified by the media and social media. Hardly a day goes by that we don’t see stories from the media about how crazy Trump is, and it’s been going on for a long time now. Trump has been compared to Hitler ad nauseum, has been derided as juvenile, has been mocked as infantile, has been criticized as naive, has been insulted as a megalomaniac, and this has been going on for a year. Donald Trump has faced criticisms far worse than anything that McAfee would face.
Yet Donald Trump is polling around 40%–four times higher than Gary Johnson. You assert that the media would write him off as a crazy nut job if McAfee had won the nomination. So? Donald Trump has proven, beyond any doubt, that if you propose ideas that people like, then the media cannot derail you. And while it’s true that the media mocked Ron Paul, it was not the mockery that hurt him. As I and others have explained, it was that the media ignored Ron Paul that hurt him. In so many ways, neglect is worse than contempt, and Donald Trump’s success has roundly proven that to us.
So this statement may be true, but is completely irrelevant.
I think you are wrong about the Libertarian party being the Next Republican party.
Well, I think I’m right.
As I explained in the video, without libertarian principles, there is nothing that distinguishes the Libertarian Party from being a Republican Party that actually walks the walk that it talks. The GOP has long been criticized for wanting small government unless the government being big will help their causes, at which point the principle of small government is discarded. I’ve written about this myself. If the Republican Party actually adhered to the ideas that it has been proposing, rather than partially adhering to those ideas, and then ignoring them in their desire to push their morality onto others, then the Republican Party wouldn’t be in this mess.
Now we have a Libertarian Presidential Candidate who demonstrably wants to push his morality onto others, but who otherwise wants small government when he is indifferent toward something. The only difference here is that the majority of Americans are okay with discrimination being illegal. I would remind you, however, that might is not right, and that it doesn’t matter of 99.99999999% of humans are okay with criminalizing discrimination; it would not make it morally right to do so. Morality is subjective, and libertarianism demands only that people abide one basic moral maxim universally:
It is morally wrong to initiate force, violence, and coercion.
That is the only moral maxim that libertarians are required to abide. Everything else is up for grabs, and you will find libertarians who disagree greatly on what is morally good, what is morally bad, and what is morally neutral. We have Johnson’s preference for outlawing something that is subjectively determined to be morally bad (discrimination), but outlawing something that is subjectively morally bad is a violation of the universal moral maxim, because the only way to outlaw something is to use force, violence, and/or coercion to put a stop to it.
I would redirect you to my remarks about groups and individuals, particularly to my podcast on businesses, because you must remember that there is no such thing as discrimination.
What we are actually talking about here is an individual choosing with whom they associate and with whom they do not associate. They may choose not to associate with another individual, or they may decide that they don’t want to associate with people who have x characteristic. It is not our business what criteria someone uses to determine who they want to associate with. Someone may not want to associate with red-heads, with transgender people, with homosexuals, with Muslims, with black men, with fat people–it’s not our business, and it is not our place to tell other people who they should associate with, or what criteria they should use in determining who they associate with.
I say this quite a lot, but that I have to explain this simple thing to a self-professed libertarian is truly… truly horrifying.
If a woman was repeatedly abused by bearded men as a child and teenager, and goes on to own a business where she decides that she doesn’t want to do business with bearded men, this would, in your worldview, be an act of discrimination against bearded men. You would tell her that she is not allowed to do that, that she is not allowed to choose who she associates with and who she shuns. You would tell her that she must associate with bearded men, whether she likes it or not, and you will put a gun to her head and force her to do what you want her to do.
I am stunned that you don’t see this travesty as a problem.
If, however, you do see a moral outrage in the previous paragraph, I would urge you to replace “bearded men” with any other group or category of people, and replace the reason with literally any other. The type of discrimination should be irrelevant to your worldview, as should the reason. Regardless of why someone wants to discriminate, and regardless of who they want to discriminate against, you must hold that it is wrong of them to do it, and that they must be forced to not do it.
Otherwise you are being sexual orientationist, racist, misogynistic, misandristic, or sexist. How?
If you would allow bearded men to be discriminated against, but not LGBT people, then you are placing LGBT on a higher pedestal than bearded men; you are treating them differently based on their sexual orientation. To treat someone differently based on their sexual orientation is, of course, sexual orientationist. It follows that if you are against LGBT discrimination, you must be against discrimination against bearded men.
know Gary Johnson isn’t a 100% true Libertarian but we are all hoping a moderate candidate can make way for a True Libertarian running in the Future.
Holy fuckballs, I’m tired of hearing this one.
I’ve addressed it… so many times… including in my most recent video about Gary Johnson:
There is a clear failure to think in this argument. As I’ve explained repeatedly, the people who are impressed by Gary Johnson and “becoming libertarians” because of him are not learning about libertarianism. They interpret “libertarianism” to be the warped mess of “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” bullshit that Johnson is peddling. Four years from now, these same people will be on the Internet, at the LNC, on the news, etc., talking about what a great libertarian Gary Johnson is.
If people were coming into the Libertarian Party and being universally encouraged to learn about its principles, to be exposed to people like myself, to Thomas Knapp, to John McAfee, to Daryl Perry, etc., then it wouldn’t be a problem. Johnson, however, is the one informing them of what a libertarian is, and he is not telling them what libertarianism is. They are learning what libertarianism is from the Libertarian Presidential Candidate.
It seems obvious, right?
Assume that you know nothing about the Libertarian Party, and then suddenly you see Gary Johnson talking his “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” stuff, and you think, “Wow! That’s perfect!” Just like that, you’ve come to believe that a libertarian is someone who is “fiscally conservative, socially liberal.” Imagine that you then go on to join the Libertarian Party, and four years later you are presented with five or six choices of who to nominate for the party, so you apply what you know of libertarianism, and you choose a candidate who is “fiscally conservative, socially liberal,” probably Gary Johnson himself (Good god, do I hope not, but I’m starting to wonder if we’ll have another Johnson candidacy in 2020, and that would cause me to give up hope on the party), or someone like Rand Paul.
In a very real way, Gary Johnson is the face of the Libertarian Party. To the masses, Gary Johnson’s policies are the policy of the Libertarian Party. Their education on what libertarianism is begins and ends with Gary Johnson. The more popular Gary Johnson becomes, the further away we get from ever being able to nominate a “true libertarian.” This… is… obvious. Because the same people we’re talking about will still be here four years from now, eight years from now, twelve years from now… and they’ll still be outnumbering us and refusing to listen because we’re chastised, mocked, derided, insulted, and considered heretics for pointing out that this “moderate” shit is un-libertarian.
I don’t want to argue with you, Ronald, because you know that I’m correct. Your contention is that it’s necessary to choose pragmatism over principle. I dispute that, but don’t make the mistake of thinking I don’t understand it. I fully understand it. I fully understand why you and others have done it. My gripe is not necessarily with you.
My gripe is with the people who don’t know that I’m correct. My argument is with the people who say that Johnson is a libertarian. My contention is directed at the people who think I’m a lunatic for saying Johnson isn’t a true libertarian. My issue is with people who say that I’m wrong about libertarianism. My ire is directed at people who say I don’t know what I’m talking about when it comes to liberty. My arguments are directed primarily at the people who say that I don’t understand libertarianism, who came into the party as former Republicans and believed Johnson’s spiel is libertarianism.
You and I both know that Johnson is not a libertarian. You assert that we must use him as a stepping stone to having an actual libertarian. I dispute that, too, don’t get me wrong. I certainly argue against that idea. But my ire is not directed at you. You and I have a difference of opinion. I and those people who think libertarianism is “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” have a difference of fact. And, most dangerously, they adamantly refuse to listen, and they will not entertain the possibility that they are wrong, because, as I’ve said, they think they know: they think they can “feel” their way to libertarianism, they think that it’s common sense, and they think that they know what they’re talking about.
It is, once more, the Dunning-Kruger Effect.
Gary will just warm the American people to that idea.
But… he won’t. He isn’t, he hasn’t, and he won’t. This is… demonstrably false, man. This is completely untrue. The stuff that Gary Johnson is warming people to is not libertarianism, as you yourself know and admit. We “true libertarians” (a phrase that I don’t care for, to be honest, because one either is a libertarian or one is not) will continue to be outliers, looneys, and heretics. Our own party is currently calling us crazy lunatics, treating us like heretics. I’ve seen “libertarians” say that people like me should be thrown in the Gulag! While the person was obviously being hyperbolic, the fact remains that “people who disagree with me should be thrown in prison” should never come out of a libertarian’s mouth, even as a joke, and we all know that there was some underlying grain of truth to his “joke.” The statement “it was just a joke” does not mean there is no nugget of sincere belief behind it. After all, my grandfather makes lots of racist jokes, and he could say “They’re just jokes,” too.
Imagine how the rest of America is going to treat us “true libertarians” if our own party is calling us crazy lunatics.
On top of that, read my previous points and watch my videos. Johnson is not warming people up to libertarianism, because libertarianism is not what he is exposing people to.
Seeing as this is the Internet and the vast majority of people have lost the ability to recognize and process sarcasm, I should point out, for the sake of my own sanity, that this video is facetious. These are the arguments I’ve had Gary Johnson supporters put forward in favor of Gary Johnson.
It’s… truly sad to see the Libertarian Party reduced to this.
Logical fallacies, absurd statements, thoroughly debunked reasoning, false equivalencies, scapegoats, ad hominem, and slippery slopes.
Today I was faced with a problem. As I arrived on-site to set up a client’s computer, I got down into the carpet and began connecting things, and–“What the hell is that smell?”
It did not take long to find the source of the problem: the jeans I was wearing. Around the knees, there was an awful and pungent stench. I have no idea what caused it–they were basically fresh out of the dryer–but it presented an immediate and serious problem: after that client (thankfully, there was no one there, and no one would have been close enough to me to smell around my knees anyway–the only reason I caught it was because I was in the floor) I had two more to visit, and I simply could not visit them like that.
I told my colleague that I wasn’t going to be able to hit the other two clients, because I was going to have to sort out this issue. I only have two pairs of work pants, to be clear. Most of my male clothes are casual–black Tripp pants with chains and things on them, and not the sort of thing a person can wear for work. He told me just take his credit card and go buy some.
As I stood in the men’s clothing aisle at Wal-Mart, it occurred to me that I no longer even know what size men’s clothing I wear. I’ve been thinking in size 7 and 5, Smalls and Mediums, through the last year, and I’ve never bought many male clothes in the first place (a curious thing, too). In fact, my male wardrobe is just enough to get buy. It is exactly the minimum that can be reasonably had. I no longer own a single pair of boxers or men’s socks. I could probably sit and list, off the top of my head, every article of male clothing that I own. There are three types: Formal Work, Casual Work, and Casual. I have about two outfits of each, really. My male shoes are old and needing to be replaced, but I just don’t care about them. My Led Zeppelin shirt is practically grey now, but I just don’t care enough to replace it. One of my casual work jeans has a hole about as big around as a pencil around one of the knees, and I just don’t care enough to replace it.
Compare that to my female shoes.
It’s worth mentioning they don’t actually look THAT bad. It was muddy today.
So it was muddy today, and I haven’t bothered to clean them since I’ve been home. I’ll tell you about the horrible day shortly, but… it was not a good day. Yes, it gets worse than finding myself wearing a pair of stinky pants that smelled in a weird place.
Compare that to my female tennis shoes on the right, which are spotless and in remarkable shape. I’ve needed to replace (or at the least polish) my male shoes for something like two years, and I just can’t be bothered to. But I won’t let so much as a speck of dust stay on my female shoes.
Of course, you wouldn’t know it from looking, but I wear my female shoes a hell of a lot more than I wear my male shoes. My male tennis shoes literally get worn only for work, and then only for some clients–the more casual ones. This same disparity exists between my flip-flops, as well–I have two pairs, and my female pair is in infinitely better shape. Each night, I put up my female flip-flops out of reach of the cats, because they try to use them as a claw sharpener.
No, cat, that’s what my recliner is for!
On the other hand, I don’t bother to put up my male flip-flops. In my defense there, though, the cats also don’t mess with them.
Right now I’m wearing a pair of jeans that are nicer, cleaner, and better than any pair of male pants that I own, including the ones that I bought today. I don’t give the smallest shit about my male clothing. It is a means to an end, and in some cases I’m actively beginning to hate it. The last thing I wanted today was to buy male clothes, and I made that clear. There’s a reason he told me to use his credit card–because then I couldn’t really object. This one I couldn’t fight, as I could the television and other crap he wanted to buy, because this was more or less necessary for work. However, there was no chance that I was going to spend my money buying clothes that I didn’t want.
“This is ridiculous,” I texted. “A true testament of how insane our society is, and how obsessed we are with the arbitrary values we place in things. I’ve got tons of really awesome clothes. Like really, I’ve got more clothes than I should, and I’m running out of places to put them. But because the angle of the legs on this pair of jeans is this way, I can’t wear them. Because the sleeves on this shirt are angled this way, I can’t wear them. Because the neck is cut this way, I can’t wear that shirt.”
It was surprisingly difficult, even with it being at no expense to myself, to buy male clothes. It felt too much like resigning to continued existence as a male. I didn’t want to buy new clothes, because I want to be escaping to where I don’t have to pretend to be a guy. I don’t want to replace my shoes because I want to move and just throw them away, not stay here for another year. I want to have moved before I have to replace them, the same for my pants and shirts. I give my colleague/employer credit for knowing immediately that there was no chance I was going to spend my money paying for more clothes, and that we’d have difficulties to deal with otherwise, but I’m not done with the story.
While on my way to the men’s clothing, I passed by the women’s clothing and immediately saw an outfit that I wanted. I’m in dire need of women’s shirts, and they’re the hardest things to find online for a decent price. I’m not interested in paying $23 for a shirt. I’m just not. Maybe one day, but I’m way too broke to find that even kinda reasonable. If I’m paying $23, I expect it to come with 3 shirts, at the very least. So sales racks and stuff at Rue21 are where I’d do my shopping for shirts–if I could.
It seemed so easy. Just walk by when there were no huge, burly, bearded dudes around, right? Quickly grab the outfit I was looking at, throw it in my basket, and reposition things so that they were covered as I went to check out. Simple, fast, easy.
So many people don’t get it when I talk about this. They say things like, “Just grab it. Fuck what people say.”
I can only shake my head at such things. Walk a mile in the shoes of a transgender Mississippian, and then come back with that. If I want to buy clothing, then I have to get a female friend to accompany me. I simply can’t stand in the aisle and inspect things, hold them up to see how they’d fit, or whether this top would match with those shorts.
“They don’t know they’re not for your girlfriend,” is another common statement.
Even if there were tons of guys running around Wal-Mart, Rue 21, Target, and Marshall’s shopping for clothes for their girlfriends (something the girlfriends wouldn’t appreciate, either) (and there aren’t anyway), it would be a flagrant denial of reality to say that people wouldn’t instantly guess that the clothes were for me. People aren’t that stupid. I knew when I went into the shoe store months ago and bought these awesome shoes that I’d get weird looks, not just for shopping for women’s shoes, but for buying a size 13–actually oversized, as it turns out I’m a 12, but it’s not like I could try them on…
The scathing, contemptible looks.
Of course, by this point I’m used to them. I’ve been getting hateful looks from people since being a goth kid in the ninth grade. However, the vitriol takes on a decidedly more lethal substance when you’re transgender. It’s not just people who don’t like my appearance or who don’t like my lifestyle; it’s people who feel threatened by my lifestyle. It’s not the female cashier that is the problem. It’s Bubba shopping with his girlfriend behind me. It’s Wyatt who is walking by. It’s the guy with a can of Skoal in his backpocket. It’s the guy who looks like he fell out of an episode of Duck Dynasty. These people are rare outliers in other parts of the world; in Mississippi, especially these more rural areas, they are the norm.
And there are tells, as I learned a few weeks ago, when a random girl at a store to which I’d never been asked me out of the blue if I preferred to be called “sir” or “ma’am.” That someone even asked this question should tell you right off the bat who we’re dealing with: southerners, for whom “sir” and “ma’am” are second nature. I don’t even think about it. A man older than me gets called “sir,” and a woman gets called “ma’am.” It’s one of the few things ingrained in every single southerner, and a dead giveaway to people in other parts of the country where you’re from.
I wasn’t doing anything odd, and this random person picked me out. No one will assume the clothes are for someone else; they will all intuit that the clothes are for me.
Even big dumb Bubba.
Seriously, Disturbed’s “Asylum” could easily be about being transgender and forced to repress it for so many years.
No remnants were ever found of it
Feeling the hot bile
With every fake smile
Though no evidence was ever found
It never went away completely
I try to hide from the unholy sound of it
Another day gone
Another night’s dawn
Dark forces pull me underground
They never went away completely
How can I feel this empty?
I will not recover this time
This loneliness is killing me
Will I never know peace of mind again?
I don’t believe it
I can’t achieve it
I think it all is just another sign
That never went away completely
Terror is coursing in me
Dreading the final moments
When I have to dream
And feel you die
([Background:] Death inside of me keeps a diligent watch on everything.
Keeps a terrible hold on my belief.
Just waiting for the moment when I…)
In Asylum (I live a lie)
Don’t you know I’m in love with you
And I wasn’t ready
For Asylum (Relive a lie)
To let go
Now it’s dragging me into your grave
Your Asylum (Forgive the lie)
Overcome by the feeling that I won’t get to join you in time
For the loneliness is killing me
Death’s images are all around again
They’re right behind me
They’re gonna find me
Judgment for the immortal sin
That had enveloped me completely
I know I’ll never know a peaceful night again
Afraid they’ll hear me
They don’t fear me
Punishment for the immoral crime
The debt was never paid completely
Terror is coursing in me
Dreading the final moments
When I have to dream
And feel you die
([Background:] Death inside of me keeps a diligent watch on everything.
Keeps a terrible hold on my belief.
Just waiting for the moment when I…)
In Asylum (I live a lie)
Don’t you know I’m in love with you
And I wasn’t ready
For Asylum (Relive a lie)
To let go
Now it’s dragging me into your grave
Your Asylum (Forgive the lie)
Overcome by the feeling that I won’t get to join you in time
For the loneliness is killing me
In the end there will be no suffering (more suffering)
In the end you will find out everything (not anything)
In the end you may question your belief (what belief)
In the end you will realize someday
How you were deceived
This has gone on too long (too long)
No more demonic dreams
Destroyer come to light
Because the memory is killing me
In Asylum (I live a lie)
I let go
Now it’s dragging me into your grave
For Asylum (Relive a lie)
Overcome by the feeling that I won’t get to join you in time
(without you) this world is not fulfilling me
Don’t make me live in Asylum
I live a lie
Don’t want to live in Asylum
I live a lie
Don’t make me live in Asylum
I live a lie
I am not a psychologist, but I know projection when I see it. It’s not hard to identify, in fact–just check to see if the source of the idea is really the source of the idea.
People need a scapegoat onto whom they can project, because otherwise they have to face the reality that the fucked up ideas and conclusions that they are attributing to other people actually came from within themselves.
In a new low for the Social Justice Warriors out there, Ellen DeGeneres is now being accused of racism.
Ellen DeGeneres–champion of equality for the last few decades.
It’s an interesting conundrum, isn’t it? If you don’t see color, and just photoshop yourself riding your friend’s back, because he’s your friend and the fastest person in the world (in human history with the 100m dash), without giving any thought whatsoever to the skin colors involved, then you are racist if that friend is black and you are white. The implication is clear: you are not allowed to photoshop yourself riding your friend’s back if your friend is black.
This horribly racist thought, of course, is one that the SJW cannot admit came from within. The SJW here hates racism passionately, and can never accept themselves as racist, even though it’s quite obviously racist to say that Ellen photoshopping herself onto her friend’s back is racist because her friend is black. Yet they know that idea is racist.
What is the SJW to do when they put out a racist idea like that?
Blame it on someone else.
Attribute the idea to someone else.
Project it onto someone else, and convince themselves that it didn’t come from themselves; it came from the other person.
The Donald Trump fiasco makes that case even better. Here is Donald Trump’s tweet:
Look carefully for any indication that Trump is saying that his wife is more attractive than Cruz’s wife. Take all the time you need. Inspect it inside and out, go over it with a fine-toothed comb, and leave no letter unturned. Let me know when you find even the smallest indication that Trump said his wife is prettier.
He said no such thing.
He left it to you to draw your own conclusion about what he meant. The conclusion that most people reached is that Trump’s wife is prettier than Cruz’s wife. Even the SJWs came to that conclusion, even as they screamed that we shouldn’t judge a person based on their appearances.
This obviously presented them with a problem.
No one said that Trump’s wife is prettier. They came up with that idea all by themselves, which meant they were the ones who compared the two women, and they were the ones who decided that Trump’s wife looks better. But they absolutely could not admit this idea came from within, because it violated the bullshit that they say all the time, that you shouldn’t judge people based on appearances.
Yet they did so.
They inescapably did so, and they were so convinced of it that they decided it was the only thing that Trump could possibly have meant. Personally, I didn’t take it as a comparison of appearances, but a comparison of behavior. I see a shrieking harpy (almost as ugly as Caitlyn Jenner, though) and an alluring woman. I see a bitter, unhappy, and angry shrew, and I see a sultry temptress. This is similar to attractiveness, granted, but it is not the same thing.
Anyway, they saw an ugly woman and a pretty woman, and they couldn’t accept that idea as coming from themselves. So they attributed to Trump and projected it onto him. They decided that he must have meant what they concluded, that he couldn’t possibly have meant anything else, and they criticized Trump for words that they put into his mouth, and for doing something that, in actuality, they had done, not Trump.
Two people are dragging a large, heavy box by chains. One person wants to go northeast; the other wants to go northwest. They each agree to just do their own thing, to not impede the other, and to walk the direction they each have chosen. So the first person walks northeast, the second walks northwest, and the box is dragged northward.
That is the essence of liberty.
Did either person get to drag the box in the direction they wanted to go?
No, but each person was allowed to walk in the direction they wanted, and that is what matters. They do not have the right to drag the box the direction they wanted to go, because the box did not belong to one person alone.
That is a follow-up to my video about Gary Johnson:
Here I go again on my own…
Going down the only road I’ve ever known
Like a drifter, I was born to walk alone
And I’ve made up my mind
I ain’t wasting no more time
Here I go again…
Here I go again…
Four years ago, I and others were told that we should vote for Mitt Romney, because he was “better than Obama” and that he was the lesser of evils. Myself and many others refuted that statement, pointing out that choosing “the lesser of evils” is still “choosing evil,” and that we would not play along.
Fast forward to today, and we have Gary Johnson supporters telling us that he’s “better than Trump and Clinton” and that he is the “lesser of evils.” One has to wonder if these are the same people who, four years ago, stood alongside me (back when I was called I/E) in rejecting this bullshit for the defeatist, apologist dribble that it is.
Virtually everything I make gets downvoted into oblivion. This neither surprises nor bothers me. I’ve always expected it. What surprises me is that I have, however slowly, been able to put together an audience over the past several months, and that what I’m saying isn’t totally rejected.
Is this it?
Is this truly the best argument that the Libertarian Party can put forward?
“He sucks less than the other two!” is not an argument at all. It is a passive resignation to corruption, squalor, and fraud, an admittance of cowardice and a concern not to stand by one’s principles but to minimize damage.
Should I be surprised that a Gary Johnson supporter is so willing to evidently throw his principles aside to vote for the lesser of evils? I suppose not.
So… you’re voting for Hillary, then? She’s “better than trump” too, right? Moreover, she stands a better chance of beating Trump than Gary Johnson does. In fact, Gary Johnson is still polling behind this mess of a person we call the Republican Presidential Candidate (Fuck, at least Libertarians are doing better than Republicans, right? I mean, it’s true…. Johnson is not an orange baboon that appears to have transcribed its bowel movements onto Twitter). So if your argument is “better than Trump,” you must be a Hillary supporter, yes?
I have to agree with John McAfee here. Barring some unforeseen calamity that causes Trump to drop from the race entirely, Gary Johnson’s poll numbers just aren’t going to change very much, and people are being foolish if they think there is a serious chance of Johnson winning the White House.
There is a strong resistance to changing political affiliations, especially from the average voter, and they view it largely as treason to their party to do it. They may reject Donald Trump, but this clearly doesn’t mean they’ll embrace a third party. In fact, evidence suggests that they are more likely to support Hillary than Gary Johnson.
I recently said that if Gary Johnson begins polling around 40%, I will soften my tune on him and will actually vote for him. The opportunity to put a third party candidate into the White House is too great an opportunity to pass up. I would also vote for Jill Stein if she hit 40%, and I disagree with her on basically everything.
It would be a gesture aimed at defeating the two party stranglehold, and nothing more. It would be a vote for “Third Parties,” not a vote for Gary Johnson and his warped brand of liberty-leaning conservatism that has usurped libertarian principles.
It’s funny that the same people who know that the fracturing of a state will not immediately produce a new state now think that the fracturing of a political party will inspire people to flock to a single, united political party. We simply will not put a Libertarian in the oval office this election. At best, Trump succeeds in destroying the GOP. This will NOT cause people to flock to the Libertarian Party.
Many will go to the Constitutionalist Party. I’d wager it will receive a greater bump than the Libertarian Party. The Reform Party will gain ground, as well. The Republican Party is massive and entails a wide ideology, and many parts of the party disagree vehemently with other parts. There are liberty-leaning Republicans like Gary Johnson. There are hardcore religious nuts like Ted Cruz. There are moderates like Kasich. There are loud, obnoxious people like Trump and Christie. There are crooked slimes like Gingrich.
If you seriously believe that people from all of those different shades of the political swathe are going to join the Libertarian Party, then you need a reality check. What would happen is this:
Donald Trump’s poll numbers fall to 15-20%.
Hillary’s climb to 70%.
Gary Johnson’s increase maybe to 10%. Despite his claims, no… he is not polling anywhere near 15%. He’s closer to 5%.
Republicans continue jumping ship.
Many defect to Hillary for the election, hoping to buy time to regroup and figure things out.
Many defect to the Constitutionalist Party, probably led there by Ted Cruz.
Many defect to the Reform Party, probably led there by Kasich. I would guess Kasich; I may be mistaken on that.
Many defect to the Libertarian Party, led there by Johnson.
The GOP has been fracturing for quite a long time, and I wrote four years ago that their only chance at long-term survival was to adopt libertarian principles. That’s still true. To survive in the modern world, the GOP needs black Americans, LGBT Americans, Hispanic Americans… Yet it has spent the better part of four decades antagonizing those groups. Any sudden reversal in those policies would be perceived as disingenuous.
Libertarianism allows them to continue disliking blacks, gays, and Mexicans without being disingenuous. It was a lifesaver thrown into the ocean for those who were trying to survive the striking of the iceberg by the RMS Trumptanic. Instead, they’ve basically been running around, like a chicken with its head cut off.
There will be severe in-fighting between the three parties I mentioned in the coming decade, and it’s a good thing for the Democrat Party. The GOP will not fracture into a strong, unified party; it will fracture into 3+ smaller parties, all of whom will begin fighting for dominance. It will be like a neverending GOP Primary, and eventually one of those three parties will reign supreme.
It won’t be the Libertarian Party.
It will be the Constitutionalist Party.
Because the Constitutionalist Party provides the religious people with a way of enforcing their will and morality onto others; libertarianism does not. People are sometimes surprised to learn that “The U.S. was built on Christianity” is a fundamental part of the Constitutional Party’s platform. Yes, it really is. When I first heard that, I argued with the Constitutionalist who told me so.
“There’s no way,” I said. “That’s insane. The First Amendment explicitly rejects that idea. There’s no way the freaking Constitutional Party could think that.”
That evening, I looked it up, and, sure enough, the man was correct.
As I said in the video, the only thing we have are our principles.
Yes, I know. I’m working on remixing the audio. Unfortunately, because I’ve used up two TB of hard drive space, I don’t save WIPs; I only save completed projects. So I have to extract everything from that video, fix the audio, and then put it all back together. It may be a while before I have the chance to do that, so… strain your ears, I suppose. I apologize for the inconvenience.
We’re not about to put Johnson into the White House. It’s time to stop kidding ourselves that any of this matters. It doesn’t–not for that purpose.
The only thing that matters is the image we’re presenting to disaffected Republicans when their party finally shatters, and this image… is not a good one.
Cowards & Apologists
These people are cowards.
Just look at how the apologentsia rush out to defend their own cowardice, their champion of unprincipled rhetoric.
“…a real Libertarian cannot be elected in the US…”
Can you imagine George Washington and Thomas Jefferson saying, “Fuck! I’d love to rebel against Britain and declare independence, but that’s just too extreme for people in the present climate. We should start smaller. Instead of the Declaration of Independence, let’s just write them the Statement of Polite Request For Better Treatment, okay?”
As I addressed in the video–the entire reason I made the video–is that this is not doing a damned thing to help the Libertarian Party. Johnson’s presidential campaign is helping only Gary Johnson, and that is coming at the expense of the Libertarian Party.
Ronald De Regt, however, has admitted to my implied claim in the video: known Republican and classical liberal Ron Paul (whom I greatly admire and respect) is more libertarian than the current Libertarian Presidential candidate. This… This is somehow helping libertarianism?
It’s helping Gary Johnson.
He didn’t want to be a little fish in a big pond, so he moved to a much smaller pond, where he was a much bigger fish.