Tag Archive | heresy

Bill Nye is Anti-Science

When I first noticed that people were using the descriptor “intelligent” not to denote people who seemed to have higher-than-average levels of intelligence, but to mark allies in political agreement, I posted that something was wrong and that it was going to get worse:

Intelligence has become the new deity.

“If you believe what I believe, then you are smart. If you are smart, then you will believe what I believe.”

An outward thing from which a person derives their own net worth–the problem is that the “outward thing” is actually an inward thing. In true Dunning-Kruger fashion, people judge their own intelligence by their own ideas, and since they always believe their own ideas to be correct, they always judge themselves to be intelligent.

I’m sure we’ve all run into this. At some point, someone has surely said something to you that was similar to, “You seem really smart… You should read this” or “… You should watch this video.” It carries with it the most dangerous of subtleties: “If you are actually smart, then you’d agree with me. Maybe you don’t have the information that I have. Here’s that information. If you still don’t agree, then I was wrong about you being smart.”

In fact, I’ve been called an “idiot” probably more than anyone I’ve ever met, and this insult has never been thrown at me in any context other than political disagreement. No one could ever possibly mistake me for an idiot. Whether I’m correct or incorrect is unrelated to that. In reality, if I say something and someone thinks I’m an idiot for it, then the much more likely answer is that they simply didn’t understand what I said in the first place.

Intelligence isn’t a prerequisite of being right, and neither is being right an indicator of intelligence. Some of the greatest minds in human history were wrong about any number of things. Being correct is a factor of knowledge and nothing else. Even someone with an IQ of 250 will be wrong about any number of things, simply because we lack a lot of information, and their unnaturally high IQ will do nothing to prevent them from being wrong.

Once more, it’s all about the Dunning-Kruger Effect, which is one of the most breathtaking psychological breakthroughs in human history. A person judges their own understanding of who is and isn’t intelligent relative to their own intelligence. I pointed out yesterday that we judge value systems relative to our own value systems–all of this is obvious, and the ties to Nietzsche’s philosophy and Austrian economics are equally obvious. We judge the value systems of other cultures by our own value system, and compare them relative to our own; ours are our own, so we like ours, and the more different the other systems are to ours, the more we dislike them. It’s impossible to escape from this, because my love for liberty-oriented value systems forms the basis that I use to assess the value of other systems. It’s also the case with intelligence: my only gauge for assessing other people’s intelligence is my own intelligence.

Several “celebrated scientists” have been exhibiting exactly the behavior that Murray Rothbard and others wrote about. They have become pimps of their scientific credibility in the employ of the state and the status quo. In fact, they have sacrificed their right to call themselves scientists and are about as anti-science as any group of people could be.

These guys.

Modern priests

What is this illustrious word “science?” What does it mean? What does it entail? If it is to be anything more than just a cheap and gaudy rubberstamp that we apply to whatever ideology we happen to believe, then it must have an actual meaning–which, ironically, is a statement that any scientist would agree with. Definitions are important, because they form the basis of the words that we use to understand and communicate the world. A simple Google search gives us:

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

I can’t help but wonder if that definition makes Stephen Hawking, Bill Nye, and Neili deGrasse Tyson blush and feel ashamed. It should.

Of course, my argument against them is part of the problem, isn’t it? I have no problem recognizing that. In the vein of any actual scientist, I see my own bias and absolutely insane demands of these human beings, that they must apply the scientific method in all areas of their lives, and that they aren’t allowed to deviate from it. In fact, it is I who is accusing them of heresy, isn’t it? They have violated my religion of Science by disgracing its methods, much like a Christian violating Christianity by disgracing the teachings of Christ.

My problem with them is that they should apply the Scientific Method and don’t.

This combines with the masses’ misunderstanding that they do apply the Scientific Method.

In effect, I’m demanding of them what the masses of people think they are already doing. “Surely we can trust Neil Tyson’s statements about art and science funding! He’s a scientist!” Of course, it was not terribly long ago that Neil Tyson asked his many, many Twitter followers if they truly wanted to live in a world without art, framing all of reality as a false dichotomy built on the idea that if the government doesn’t do something, then it can’t be done. The obvious problems with this stupidity don’t need to be pointed out–didn’t I just buy tickets to see a musical concert? The government didn’t buy those tickets.

Bill Nye went on CNN and made the statement that the Constitution authorizes Congress to fund the sciences, and made mention of Article I, Section 8. It’s true that this is the section that enumerates Congressional power, but nothing else that Nye said is remotely true, as the passage that Nye quotes leaves off highly significant data. What do we call a “scientist” who discards a large part of the data because it isn’t convenient to his hypothesis?

“Formerly employed,” perhaps.

“Not a scientist.” Yes, that’s another option.

In fact, the section of the Constitution to which Bill Nye refers explicitly enumerates Congressional power without ambiguity, and the full passage asserts that Congress may promote the arts and sciences by securing patents for the respective authors and inventors. It is authorization to issue patents, not authorization to issue money. There’s no way that Nye could have accidentally read the first part of the sentence and not the second part. This was, we must conclude, an intentional ploy to convince the people who take him at his word as a reliable source that the Constitution authorizes Congress to fund scientific research. In the interest of scientific integrity, I will provide the evidence to support my contention:

Congress shall have the power…To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

So this is two “celebrated scientists” who have been thoroughly disloyal to the precepts of science–the Scientific Method, the Bible of Science. Since so few people are calling them out on their heresy, allow me to do so:

Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson, you have betrayed your church, and you should both repent and make restitution. This restitution should come in the form of public apologies on no less than six occasions throughout the next six weeks–two in written, two in aural, and two in video form. That shall be your penance.

I may sound like I’m joking, and I am, to a degree. I don’t expect Nye and Tyson to ever back down from their arrogant betrayal of the scientific method and wanton displays of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, much less to ever issue a single apology for the stupid shit they have said. However, I’m serious about my loyalty to the scientific method, to reason, and to evidence, and I’m serious that clearly these three men cannot say the same.

What of Hawking? Well, Hawking has repeatedly waxed at length about the evils of capitalism and how only world government can save us from its oppressive destruction. Never mind that anyone who has taken even a single introductory college-level economics course can attest to the scientific fact that we do not have capitalism anywhere on planet Earth. So I’m calling out Hawking on clearly never studying economics, yet routinely attempting to talk about economics as though he has any idea what in the hell he’s talking about. Clearly, he doesn’t, and any first-year college student could confirm that.

So to these three heretical priests, I say:

Repent! The end is Nye.

What we’re seeing is a more of an revival than a renaissance, as the precepts of science have been tossed in the trash with reckless abandon. What else can we conclude, when “celebrated scientists” make claims that they either know to be false, trusting that the masses will believe them, or are simply too ignorant on the subject to know whether their claim is false at all?

Yet this hasn’t stopped the masses–the precise characteristics which makes them “the masses,” after all, is that they aren’t interested in independently discovering truth and will blindly follow whatever ideology is handed down to them from “trusted authorities”–from swallowing all of it, with Tyson’s demonstrably false, fallacious, and erroneous spiel seeing tens of thousands of retweets by people who have no desire to think the matter through for themselves.

Trust has been placed in these three people, by the masses of people, who, again, are defined “as the masses” precisely by their lack of interest in pursuing these matters intellectually, and these three people have utterly betrayed that trust. Yet the masses don’t know it, do they? No, because the masses aren’t interested in scrutinizing the words of their favorite priests. For the masses, these poisoned, fallacious ideas enter the mind unchallenged, and there they embed themselves; the masses never stop to ponder the false dichotomy that Tyson has proposed, or what credentials Stephen Hawking might have to discuss economics rather than cosmology.

And I’m as qualified to call myself a scientist as Bill Nye.

I haven’t researched this recently, and seem to recall Nye having a Master’s, but maybe not.

In fact, if a “scientist” is someone who liberally applies the scientific method to questions, then I’m infinitely more qualified. Bill Nye has the advantage in that this actor and performer managed to get a kids’ show where he cheaply purchased credibility among the masses and became a trusted authority figure. Indeed, I find myself wondering whether Bill Nye was purposely planted there when we were kids precisely for this purpose–precisely for using him to peddle statism and the status quo once we became adults. It wouldn’t be the most extravagantly dangerous thing the state ever did. After all, they took control of the entire education apparatus and have been using it to manipulate the masses for 60 years. Now those people raised by the state education are adults and in charge, and the idea of dismantling that apparatus is met with knee-jerk angry reactions; the idea is rejected without consideration.

Give me their minds through their formative years, and by the time they’re adults I can have them convinced of anything. I can have them saying it’s okay to kill people who disagree with them, that people of one race deserve to be annihilated or enslaved, that it’s okay to steal things if they want those things… The mind of a child is not critical. By the time they are able to think critically, the ideas I plant will already be firmly in their minds, forming the very lens through which they view the world.

We have rarely been in more danger of a religious sentiment overtaking reason, and Nye, Tyson, Kaku, and Hawking are leading the charge. “Science” isn’t a set of beliefs that one must adhere to or be a heretic. I’ve seen “pro-science” people do the metaphorical equivalent of burning people at the stake for dare challenging one of the items in their set of beliefs, and I’m sure you’ve seen the same. “Science” is a methodology. Anyone who demands that you acquiesce to a set of beliefs and ideas that they have put forward is peddling religion, not science.

If they can’t present evidence, if they can’t present a reasonable argument, and if they can’t prove their position, based on all available evidence, is sound, then they are unworthy of trust. If they ignore huge amounts of information simply because it’s inconvenient to their hypothesis, then they are engaging in cherry-picking, another hallmark of religion, rather than science.

Liberal Monoliths & Manifest Destiny v2.0

It strikes me as very distressing that we can treat blacks, hispanics, LGBT people, and women as unified, monolithic voting blocs who speak, act, and move with a single voice, rather than as individuals with their own beliefs, hopes, and desires. It’s even more alarming because Republicans are frequently criticized of being intolerant of all of these groups, while all of these groups scream that these characteristics shouldn’t matter, and while liberals are clearly the ones treating everyone who categorizes one way or another as though they are a resource to be tallied on the page.

Behold this:

14457545_322724114752962_5394598635458317730_nI sit in shock every single time I read it. Yesterday morning while scrolling through my News Feed, I found a friend of a friend asking whether transgenderism and homosexuality were mental illnesses. Indeed, he repeated the question today. Each time, the answers were filled with almost supreme stupidity–a stupidity matched only by Shit Kyle Wagner Says. Yet, none of the comments or posts on the linked page are dumb enough to warrant their own article. None come anywhere close to being as supremely insultingly and offensive to such a raw degree as the inane spiel I linked above and that I’ll type out here for those who can’t load images:

It’s fascinating to me that the vast majority people [sic] I see advocating voting for a third party, rather than Hillary, are straight, white, and predominantly men. There’s a reason why women, racial minorities, and members of the LGBT community are overwhelmingly in support of Hillary. Voting for her is the only way to ensure our own liberty, and in some cases our lives.

You do NOT get to call yourself an Ally to the LGBT community if you don’t vote for her.

You do NOT get to call yourself an Ally to the Black, Hispanic, and Muslim communities if you don’t vote for her.

You do NOT get to call yourself a Feminist if you don’t vote for her.

Voting 3rd party for the General Presidential Election is literally throwing your vote away. Your “protest” vote does nothing to help any 3rd party, because that’s not how the Electoral College works. Vote Green Party or Libertarian at the local and state levels, where the change you’re looking for can actually take root [bold emphasis added].

Voting 3rd party in this election is saying that your personal outrage at her “scandals” or your anger at Bernie losing, is more important than the rights and lives of women, LGBT people, and the Black, Hispanic, and Muslim communities.

Voting 3rd party is an insult to me, and everyone else who will have to fear a Supreme Court that Trump chooses. The radically conservative Supreme Court he’s promising to deliver could undo decades of social progress, and could last for decades to come. If he delivers on his campaign promises, LGBT rights, women’s rights, the safety and security of the Black, Hispanic, and Muslim communities, is all at stake.

Trump WILL win if the liberal base gets divided. And it will be YOUR fault.

But I get it. You “can’t stand” Hillary. That’s totally more important than all of the people you’re putting in danger.

Good god, it’s so supremely arrogant, entitled, and offensive. I’m genuinely not sure where to start.

Notice, though, that the post specifically precludes the possibility that any black person, Hispanic person, Muslim, or LGBT person could somehow not support Hillary. You can’t call yourself an Ally, but can I still call myself Transsexual, if I don’t vote for Hillary? Can black people still call themselves black if they don’t vote for Hillary? Can Muslims still call themselves Muslims?

Oh. No. We can’t still call ourselves these things we might be: http://www.infowars.com/wow-african-american-reporter-called-race-traitor-by-hillary-supporter-presidential-debate-coverage/

You’re a “race traitor” if you’re black and don’t support Hillary. I imagine that I’m an insult to the LGBT community for not supporting Hillary. I’ve been told that before, specifically because I wouldn’t march in lockstep with the rest of the LGBT community screaming about the evil, offensive Christians while licking the feet of the Muslims who hate you far more than Christians do.

Heil! Heil!

heilYes.

You are a totalitarian, authoritarian piece of shit demanding absolute obedience and compliance with what you want, and calling people traitors and enemies if they break the stride of your Liberal Supremacy March.

I have no love for Trump. In fact, I can’t stand Trump. But you people are constantly screaming about how much like Hitler he is while you undergo the exact same bullshit that Hitler did.

I cannot stand you. You are the worst kind of human being, so thoroughly convinced of your own self-righteousness and moral supremacy that you cannot see the moral atrocities you commit in the name of that self-righteousness and arrogance. I recently remarked that you and the liberals like you are doing nothing more than continuing the Manifest Destiny as set out by Andrew Jackson–and, don’t worry, I’m going to explain this remark. Your arrogance is supreme and knows no bounds. Everyone must bow to your compassion, your wisdom, your rightness. And if they don’t–

Well, there’s always the Bastille.

Recently the entire nation of Canada purportedly banned members of the Westboro Baptist Church from entering. I’ve got friends on Facebook celebrating this and remarking how much they love Canada. I’m sure you would totally agree, in fact. But I’ve got some bad news for you, sunshine–this is not what you’d expect to see… If you are cheering for how Canada is refusing to allow members of the WBC to enter their country while condemning Trump for saying the exact same thing about Muslims, then you are a vile and disgusting hypocrite. Just because one is your pet religion and the other is not–when the reality is that, on average, Muslims are far more hostile toward LGBT people than even the Westboro Baptist Church.

It’s been a long time since a member of the Westboro Baptist Church shot up a club and killed 49 people in Orlando, you piece of shit.

https://www.quora.com/Who-was-the-last-presidential-candidate-prior-to-Donald-Trump-who-incited-riots-of-equal-or-greater-magnitude/answer/Aria-DiMezzo?srid=QLHv

Manifest Destiny 2.0

One of the funniest thing about a Trump presidency is the people who say that he hates India and China because he wants to work out deals that are in the best interests of the United States, and that he’s not going to put Indian or Chinese interests first in his negotiations. People act like he’s basically declaring war on them. We have this idea that it’s bad–it’s awful–if we put American interests first. Why?

Are you seriously naive enough to believe that India doesn’t put India’s interests first? That China doesn’t put China’s interests first?

Of course you’re not. You know that India puts India first. This is why your position is one of such arrogant. You have the position that the Indians are incapable of looking out for their own best interests against our glorious awesomeness, that the Chinese are incapable of looking out for their own best interests against our marvelous and benevolent might. We have to look out for their best interests, rather than our own, because they’re too stupid to refuse a deal that isn’t in their own best interests. We have to put Iran’s interests first in our nuclear agreement with them because they’re too dumb to say “No” to a deal that isn’t in their best interests, thereby demanding that we draft a better one.

You let India worry about India. India doesn’t need you, Glorious Whitey, looking out for it.

You are showcasing White Man’s Burden through and through. It has morphed, somewhat. It is now more like White Person’s Burden, but it’s the same thing. All these poor brown people–whatever would they do without us protecting them and putting their interests first? They would never survive, the silly barbarians. Because we’re just so great, so powerful, so unstoppable that if we dared put our own best interests first–even for a second–we would steamroll them right out of existence without a whimper from them.

How can we not see this in the spiel I posted above?

It’s specifically targeting allies of these various groups. It lays out the stakes: “Their very lives will be in danger! The lives of women, blacks, hispanics, LGBT people, and Muslims! TRUMP WILL DESTROY THEM ALL and the women, blacks, hispanics, LGBT people, and Muslims couldn’t possibly stand against Mighty Whitey!”

Fuck you, you racist, arrogant piece of shit.

You are not superior to me.

You are not superior to any black person. Black people do not need Mighty Whitey as a goddamned savior.

Muslims don’t need you to be their goddamned savior.

Hispanics don’t need you to be their goddamned savior.

LGBT people have gone so far past equality and into oppression of religious people that I’m not even going to address that, you narcissistic idiot. I am a resident of the state of Mississippi, and I am transgender. I have lived a life of such horror, discrimination, and grotesque abuse that I’ve literally written a book about–look for it to be in stores pretty soon. And I can tell you this: Hillary is not going to do one tiny fucking thing to help people in that situation, and neither will Trump, and you know what else?

They shouldn’t.

You want to know what will help transgender kids who grew up in the circumstances I grew up in? Not legislation. Not oppression. Not laws. A simple book telling them how to survive, telling them that they can survive. Not you in all your sanctimonious brow-beating to support your candidate who quite clearly wants war with Russia.

What a fantastic idea, of course. We love everyone else so much that we want a war with Russia!

I would rather die than vote for Hillary. I would. If you put a gun to my head and told me that you would pull the trigger if I didn’t support Hillary, I would not hesitate to tell you to pull the trigger. And I can prove it–I do live where my life is in danger. It’s a reality that entitled maggots like you cannot understand, comprehend, or even fathom. I sleep with a loaded shotgun on the headboard of my bed because I know–I know–that the next time someone pulls into my driveway in a drunken rampage at 3 in the morning, no amount of laws will protect me.

Click that link if you want to know why laws, voting, legislation, and police have almost no bearing to my life, and will never change that need to sleep with a loaded gun within arm’s reach. You are insane if you think that any law will protect me.

I haven’t said nearly everything that I want to say. I assure you that I’ll be revisiting this later today, or tomorrow, so stay tuned for that. I’ll give it a separate post, though. The fallacious position this person spouts cannot be allowed to stand by any reasonable person, and I will not allow it to.

I’ll summarize this: The crap we’re discussing can easily be summarized this way:

If you don’t march in lockstep with me, then you are a heretic.

Wow. I’m Defending Gary Johnson…

Americans demand the absurd and the impossible.

Says the anarchist who has spent months criticizing Gary Johnson, right? Oh, don’t worry. I’m going to continue doing so, but that isn’t what I’m getting at. My demands are reasonable, I would argue: I want a Libertarian presidential candidate to actually be a libertarian. What I’m seeing from Americans, however, is entirely unreasonable: they want candidates who have all the answers.

In fact, Americans absolutely hate it if a presidential candidate reveals that they don’t know everything. Realistically, even the most uninformed American has to accept the reality that too much bullshit happens on a daily basis for anyone to keep track of. However, that’s not the way this works. Politicians are supposed to know everything and are supposed to have all the answers, and if they show for even a second that they don’t, then it is taken as a weakness.

Gary Johnson Stuns Morning Joe Panel With a Blank Stare: ‘What Is Aleppo?’

Already, Johnson is being criticized for this. I’m all for criticizing Gary Johnson–when he deserves it. But here you’re going to criticize a man for not knowing everything? What are you going to do about the situation in the South China Sea? What are you going to do about the situation in Mecca, and what the Saudis have said about Indians? These sort of questions cut both ways.

“But we should expect a presidential candidate to know everything that is relevant!” some might argue.

And that’s true, to a degree, but do you have any idea how much shit happens that is considered relevant?

It’s not about Aleppo, though people are gearing up to make out like they know what Aleppo is, and that they’ve always known what Aleppo is.

brace

These people don’t care about Aleppo. Until this morning, I didn’t know what Aleppo was, and when I saw the word I assumed it was some kind of medication. I’m not ashamed of that. Why should I be? You can’t expect people to know everything, presidential candidate or otherwise. Do you have any idea how much information is being shoved at Gary Johnson on a constant basis? He’s not Bruce Wayne.

It’s simply about the fact that Gary Johnson admitted that he didn’t know.

That was the point at which a politician should have deflected and gone off into a completely different answer–you know, how all the other politicians do. When asked a question they don’t have the answer to, Rule 1 for politicians is to bring up something else, “related” or “unrelated” is irrelevant. A politician in Johnson’s position should have brought up the drug war, police violence, or just about anything.

But he didn’t.

He admitted that he didn’t know something.

That, to Americans, is the utmost of heresies.

A century of statism, interventionism, and fascism have left us under the impression that the state has all the answers, and that delusion can only be maintained if we are allowed to labor under the belief that politicians are different from us, better than us, above us. If they admit they don’t know something, these representatives of the all-knowing state, then they are admitting that the state is fallible, that the state might make a mistake.

And that, to Americans, is heresy.

The same thing happened when Donald Trump humbly said that no one should listen to him about Brexit, because he didn’t know enough about it. Americans don’t care what your answer is. Just pretend to have an answer for them. Just pretend that you know. No matter how unrelated to the question your answer is, just never say that you don’t know something. Donald Trump, crowned by the media for some reason as the king of egotism, admitted to not knowing something, and people flipped out.

Now they’re doing it again.

Because the state has all the answers, we’ve been told. The state can solve every problem. The government knows everything, is never wrong, and can do anything. It is infallible and perfect.

And how can the state be infallible and perfect if the politicians that represent the state don’t know something?

A politician saying that he doesn’t know something makes us see right through the cracks in the absurd notion that the state knows everything and has all the answers, and that’s something that we can no longer handle. We have come to rely on that insane delusion–it is the pacifier we suck on as the world falls apart.

“How can the state be perfect and infallible if its representative is not?” is a question the average American simply can’t handle after decades of fascism and promises that the state can fix everything. To the average American, this was outright heresy against the cult of the state, forcing them for just a moment to see that the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes, and that’s something they aren’t able to do right now.

It’s revealing that we only half-heartedly attack politicians for going off on unrelated tangents when asked simple questions (something libertarian candidates do not do–seriously, have you not watched the Stossel Debate? Libertarian candidates answer the questions they’re asked.). “Hillary was asked about Bengazi, why the fuck is she talking about Trump’s statements about the Khan family?” we ask, but we don’t hold it against Hillary. In fact, we expect that sort of behavior.

We love that sort of behavior, even as we pretend to condemn it, because that is the sort of thing that allows our delusion that the state is omniscient and omnipotent to persist. If Hillary said, “I don’t know. I’m just a human being, after all. I guess I fucked up,” then that would decimate her chances of winning the election. But launching into a refrain against Trump? That won’t hurt her at all. Just ponder that for a moment. It is clear why this is the case. In fact, I’ve said it several times:

Because it is heresy to reveal that the state is not omniscient and omnipotent.

In the cult of the state, it is heresy to suggest that the state is fallible, imperfect, or not omniscient.

Gary Johnson Has Made Us All Heretics

I’ve made no secret of the fact that I strongly dislike Gary Johnson and strongly disapprove of the “Libertarian” Party’s choice to nominate him (again) for President, just as I strongly disapprove of the direction that the libertarian party has taken in recent years. It is increasingly the party of classical liberals and liberty-leaning Republicans, and I know a lot of “libertarians” who support Rand Paul and wanted him to be Gary Johnson’s Vice President.

bill weld

I mean… What do you even say? What do you even say to people who claim to be libertarians without knowing the first thing about libertarianism?

Libertarianism: What is it?

Libertarianism is the political ideology that liberty is the best method of solving almost all problems, and that force, violence, and coercion are only acceptable to defend liberty and as a response to force, violence, and coercion. Force, violence, and coercion are the only way that rights can be violated; in fact, force, violence, and coercion instantly and by definition violate the rights of the person who is a victim of force, violence, and coercion. Libertarianism is the ideology that the state should exist only to protect liberty, and should only use force, violence, and coercion to protect liberty. I go one step further and am an anarchist, because I don’t believe that the state can protect liberty, and I hold that its very existence is counter to liberty. Anarchism aside, there is no ambiguity in this platform, and a libertarian’s position on any given matter should be easy to guess.

Does the issue utilize force, violence, and/or coercion?

If yes, then the libertarian rejects it. If no, then the libertarian doesn’t give a shit about it.

It’s really that simple.

There’s no room for disagreement on this matter or that issue, because force, violence, and coercion (collectively: aggression) can always be demonstrated, and must always be rejected. In fact, to even join the Libertarian Party, one is required to sign what is basically the Non-Aggression Pact:

I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.

Recent years have seen an influx of disaffected Republicans and liberty-leaning conservatives who do not understand that the Libertarian Party is built from principles, not ideas, and there is a difference. The Republican Party is a party of ideas, a party where issues and solutions can be discussed, suggested, picked apart, accepted, and rejected. The Democrat Party is a party of ideas, where issues and solutions can be discussed, suggested, picked apart, accepted, and rejected. But the Libertarian Party is a party of principles, and those principles are set in stone. They are not up for discussion, and they cannot be put up for discussion without violating the very core of the libertarian party: that force, violence, and coercion are not acceptable.

Take the question of marijuana, for example. Should it be illegal, should it be legal? Some people within the Libertarian Party would discuss this and have a debate about it, and that’s nonsense, because the question has already failed at the first hurdle. Does possession or usage of marijuana entail force, violence, and coercion? No. Everything else is completely irrelevant, and the government has no right to weigh in on the subject. Prostitution is another area that “libertarians” are debating. Should it be legal? Should it be illegal? Should it be legal, but regulated? Again, this is a discussion that is not warranted under libertarian principles, as prostitution (when taken out of the black market, obviously) does not involve force, violence, or coercion, and the state therefore has no right to weigh in on it.

Gary Johnson is against the notion of religious freedom and wholly rejects the idea that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on religious grounds. Gary Johnson fails to realize that saying “I don’t want to do business with you or people like you” in no way, shape, or form involves aggression, and thus the government has no right to weigh in on the matter. This is just one of many areas where Gary Johnson abides libertarian principles until they’re no longer convenient and easy, at which point he rejects them in favor of his own ideas. Because he thinks discrimination is really, really, really wrong, he is okay with the government legislating against it, even though it involves no violation of anyone’s rights, and thus he has his own morality that guides him in deciding when to apply libertarian principles and when not to.

In effect, Gary Johnson wants to legislate his morality. Unless he doesn’t care about the behavior, in which case, “No, he’s a libertarian.” But if he dislikes the behavior, then he’s every bit as authoritarian as the people who banned sodomy.

Johnson’s pledge would be:

I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals… as long as the goal isn’t “to end discrimination.”

Ron Paul

I have to blame Ron Paul for all the “new” libertarians who don’t know the first thing about libertarianism, though that isn’t Ron Paul’s fault. These people were brought into the folds of liberty by Ron Paul (as was I), but they stopped with Ron Paul and assumed that he was Mr. Libertarian. They may not have ever even read any of Ron’s books. They certainly never read Mises, Rothbard, Nock, or Hayek. Their understanding of libertarianism comes from Ron Paul, and so that’s what they think a libertarian is.

Ron himself would tell you that he’s a classical liberal, though, and he explicitly wrote that in Liberty Defined. There’s a reason that Ron Paul only ran for President as a Libertarian once, and that was nearly three decades ago. I’m not knocking the guy–no one loves Ron Paul as much as I do. He was the guy who introduced me to liberty, after all. I’d also vote for Ron Paul in a heartbeat, even though I disagree with him on a few things just as much as I agree with Johnson. There are more areas where I disagree with Johnson, and…

That should be a pretty big indicator of how bad Gary Johnson is. Republican Ron Paul is more libertarian than the current Libertarian Party Presidential candidate. Worse still, Gary Johnson is only marginally more of a libertarian than Rand Paul. Rand Paul. The guy who slightly leans toward liberty but is otherwise a Republican to the core. Does anyone out there really think that Rand Paul is a libertarian? Does anyone out there who knows what libertarianism is really think that Rand Paul is a libertarian?

I just answered my own question, didn’t I?

The more people understand liberty and libertarianism, the more glaringly obvious it is that neither Rand Paul nor Gary Johnson deserve the label. Ron Paul deserves the label far more than either of these two, and Ron Paul refused to accept the label. Granted, he has become more libertarian since his retirement, and he has always been a champion of liberty and libertarianism. The same cannot be said of Johnson and Rand.

But Johnson is Bringing In New People!

Yeah, and I addressed that in my podcast.

The problem is that these “new people” brought in by Johnson who think that libertarian means “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” not only outnumber us (obviously) but also pick the presidential nominee. Do you see the problem? Johnson brings in people like him who have no idea what a libertarian even is, and they nominate more people like Johnson. When people like me point out that there’s nothing libertarian about any of these people, we’re told to shut up, that we don’t know what we’re talking about, that we just don’t want the party to be successful, that we need to fall in line, and that they are what a “true libertarian” looks like, while we’re just spiteful.

Johnson literally stole the Libertarian Party right out from under us, and these endorsements he is getting by big-name Republicans is not going to help matters, and neither is the influx of more disaffected Republicans who hate Donald Trump. I think it’s great that the party is growing. But as it grows, the education must also grow, or the LP will just become the GOP. It’s already happening, after all. Look at our presidential nominee and the endorsements he is getting. With libertarian principles slain on the altar of mass appeal, what, exactly, distinguishes the Libertarian Party from a party of unhappy liberty-leaning Republicans?

Nothing.

These people must be made to understand that they have no idea what they’re talking about, and that Gary Johnson is not Mr. Libertarian. They don’t have time to read Anatomy of the State, End the Fed, Human Action, The Road to Serfdom, On Intellectual Property, and whatever else? Fine. That means it’s our job to educate them. And I don’t think any of us mind that.

The problem is that they aren’t willing to listen, because they think they know what libertarian means, and it means “fiscally conservative, socially liberal.” They think it means “Basically like Ron Paul” and “Basically like Gary Johnson” and our bemused head-shaking does nothing to reach them.

So what, in a sentence, is my issue with Gary Johnson?

Gary Johnson has made me a heretic to my own party.

And let’s not even get into the fact that he claims to be a champion of the Fourth Amendment, and wants to let in Syrian refugees–except that he wants to spy on them and monitor them based on their religious beliefs and their nation of origin, even though he has no probable cause or justification or warrant! How can this guy claim to be a defender of the Fourth Amendment?

“I defend the Fourth Amendment sometimes,” is what you mean to say, Johnson. “As long as you’re not a Muslim from Syria.”

That’s the exact mentality that gave us the Patriot Act! And you dare claim to be a libertarian? This is exactly the sort of “I’m a libertarian… unless I’m not” crap that Johnson is notorious for. One either supports the Fourth Amendment or one doesn’t. Gary Johnson wants to have it both ways. Either people have the right to privacy without being spied upon by the government until they’ve demonstrated probable cause and the state has gotten a warrant, or people don’t have that right. Gary Johnson, however, would say “People have that right, unless I think they shouldn’t.” That is not a libertarian position. And, again, by what hidden criteria does he use to determine when people should be protected by the Bill of Rights and when they shouldn’t be?

That is how badly statism has conquered the world. Even the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate uses a non-principled metric to determine who gets rights and who doesn’t.

Libertarians, I implore you: kick Gary Johnson and his ilk from the party. If he was willing to learn, that would be one thing. But he has demonstrated that he is not. He has had this glaring contradiction (“I believe in the Fourth Amendment, unless you’re a Muslim refugee from Syria”) brought to his attention, and he waves it away. He knows that he is not following libertarian principles. Why are we still discussing this “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” clown? Kick him from the party and nominate an actual libertarian. Kick Austin Petersen while you’re at it, because he openly says that the Non-Aggression Pact is stupid. That’s the VERY BASIS of the party!

What is going on? Kick these people out until they’re willing to follow the principles. The GOP and Democratic Party are what happens when you let people in who don’t give a duck-squatting shit about the principles.