Category Archives: Libertarianism

You Have no Right to my Labor!

I hear this all the time from libertarians, especially recently when the whole gay-wedding-baker case came back to the forefront.  Libertarians will scream that nobody has the right to their labor, therefore they ought to be able to discriminate against anyone they want, for whatever reason they want, and nobody ought to be able to do anything about it.

Except that’s not how it works.  Nobody is making them a slave.  They VOLUNTEERED their labor when they opened their business, when they accepted a license for their business, when they tacitly agreed to follow the applicable laws of the land as a consequence of opening a public accommodation business.  Nobody is demanding their labor, they voluntarily offered it!  People are just taking them up on their offer.

Of course, when you point this out, most libertarians will shut up and slink back into the shadows because they have no rational counter for it. The few insane ones will demand that they never agreed to anything and they aren’t bound by the laws of society and they can change their minds any time, but that’s not how it works and I don’t think anyone intelligent falls for that kind of wing nut libertarianism in the first place.

The fact remains that society has every right to pass whatever laws they like and think are valid and that you, as a consequence of your presence within said society, are obligated to follow the laws that society has passed, or go find another society in which you can do so.  I don’t care if you like it, it is simply the case and has been in every operable society in the history of mankind.  There has never been a case where people could do whatever they wanted with no consequences, period.  Just because you want to doesn’t mean you get to.  Get over yourself.

Of course, this doesn’t silence the fanatics because, as with the religious, they just don’t care if what they believe is true, so long as it gives them an emotional woody.  They are people who simply do not comprehend humanity or human society.  They want things they are not entitled to and refuse to acknowledge that they are on the wrong side of… everything.  Because they don’t care.  And that’s anti-intellectual idiocy.

The Libertarian Lunacy Returns

While there’s a lot of drama going on with the Trump victory and the whiny, crying Clinton supporters, there’s one more thing that nobody should be surprised at, the complete and utter failure of the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.  Anyone with half a clue knew that he’d lose and by a ridiculous margin, but you still had those crazed libertarians thinking that this time… this time, he might win.

Except they’ve been saying that about libertarian candidates for nearly 50 years and it hasn’t happened yet.  It hasn’t even been close.  Their candidates are barely a speedbump in the political road and they’re not getting better.  I could see it if they were consistently getting more votes in election after election, but they’re not.  They’re stagnant.  If anything, they’re getting worse.  And if they couldn’t make any traction in this election, an election between two major candidates that everyone hated, it’s time to pack it in and give it up.

Except they won’t.  They won’t admit the reality that their political platform doesn’t resonate with any significant portion of the American public.  That’s why they lose, because nobody likes them, but you won’t see any of them admitting it, will you?  Instead, they make excuses.  It’s all rigged.  There’s a conspiracy theory keeping them out of power.  Everything but accepting the ridiculously obvious, that they lose because nobody in their right mind wants them to win.

And I called it.  It wasn’t hard to do.  It was painfully obvious that Johnson was not only going to lose, but was going to lose by an absurd margin.  He didn’t pick up any significant steam in this election than the party had in any other, and if you can’t make tremendous strides here, give the hell up.  But libertarians won’t do it.  They’ll continue to make excuses for why their boy screwed the pooch when they were so sure that he’d have a good showing.  They can’t admit that their failure comes from their platform, not from some vast conspiracy to keep them out of office.  The Libertarians are a laughing stock.  They always have been and they always will be.  You know what they call people who continue to do the same thing over and over and over expecting different results, right?  And that’s exactly what libertarianism is in the west.  Completely, totally and utterly insane.

The Libertarian Delusion

I always find it funny how delusional ardent libertarians are.  They are supremely convinced that some day, the whole world will just magically adopt their political ideology and when it doesn’t happen, there must be some grand conspiracy afoot keeping them from their rightful place at the head of the line.  This is nothing new, a lot of crazy ideologies think the same thing and the more that you believe in the conspiracy line of thinking, the more willing people are to do utterly insane things to advance their cause.

As part of my long time discussion with a libertarian though, I’ve started to see some of that insanity creeping through.  Now I admit that I’m poking him with a stick, initially hoping that it would get through his filters, but now just for fun.  He’s supremely convinced that libertarianism, hard-core, radical libertarianism, is the only workable political philosophy and that those dedicated to the cause must be willing to do whatever it takes to let it take power, for the good of humanity, of course.

But, as I keep pointing out, humanity wants nothing to do with libertarianism.  For a group that has been around, at least in an official capacity, for more than 45 years, they have never, ever, not even once gotten anywhere close to 2% of the popular vote.  This is because people don’t like their platform.  This isn’t a conspiracy, this is a failure of their ideology to appeal to the American voter.  As we all know, there’s a term for doing the same thing over and over and over again and expecting different results and the libertarians are, in that regard, completely insane.

It just gets worse though.  This guy seems to think, although he won’t come right out and say it, that if the American people won’t accept libertarian rule, then it should be forced upon them, by force if necessary, for their own good.  He’s quick to point out that libertarians have guns.  He never says what they might want to do with them, but when I ask how libertarians are going to achieve power, he just says that they have weapons, as though the intention isn’t painfully clear.  He seems to want an armed insurrection aimed at overthrowing the democratically elected government of the United States so that his own political ideology, an ideology that is almost universally reviled by the American public, can be put in place to force Americans to do what no successful government in the history of the planet has ever done.  There has never been a successful society that has used libertarianism as it’s core principles.  There’s a reason for that.  It’s insane.

But I guess there’s a lot of really delusional libertarians out there.  There aren’t enough to have any shot in hell of a coup, but these losers are probably rallying around the fallout shelter, talking big and not knowing that they’re less than bugs, waiting to be squashed by reality.  As much as I don’t want to see that happen in reality, it might be entertaining to watch them get mowed down by the military machine that they seem to think they can overcome.

Put it on pay-per-view or something.  It would make millions.

Freedom vs. Responsibility

I’ve been having an ongoing discussion with a libertarian who seems convinced, as most of them seem to be, that there’s some grand conspiracy to keep everyone from acknowledging the supremacy of the libertarian position.  This is crazy conspiracy theorist talk.  You’d think they could see how ridiculous it is.

But it’s also funny, he keeps saying that libertarians respect freedom, I keep pointing out that freedom is meaningless without responsibility, and he keeps going right back to freedom.  He doesn’t want to talk about an individual’s responsibility to larger society, he just wants to be left alone to do whatever the hell he wants to do, regardless of the potential negative impact it might have on society.

Of course, this is nothing new.  I’ve posted before about libertarians who, for example, don’t want to pay property taxes that  go toward public schools because they don’t personally have children.  If it doesn’t directly better their own lives, they want no part of it.  Never mind that having an educated populace makes society better for everyone, they get no direct benefit so screw it.  The same goes for roads.  If they don’t personally drive on those particular roads, they don’t want to pay a red cent for them.  The problem with these people is they have no interest in being part of society, they are fiercely individualistic to the exclusion of all else.  And as we all know, when you become a fanatic, regardless of what you are fanatical about, you become a problem.

What’s worse, no matter how much you point this out to them, they keep their eyes clenched tightly closed.  They just don’t care.  They’re blinded by their own political ideology.  Everyone else can see the problems inherent in their beliefs, they simply are unable to acknowledge it.  That’s why they have to keep pretending there’s a conspiracy and that nothing in their ideology could possibly be to blame.  They can only point fingers outward, never inward.  That’s why their party, after 45 years in existence, continues to fail miserably at the polls.  And instead of admitting that there is a problem with their own platform, they just make excuses for why they fail.  It reminds me a lot of the fanatical Christians who would rather pretend that the world is out to get them than to admit that they have had an unfair social advantage for centuries and now are being treated just like everyone else.  They want to be special so when their special status is taken away, they pretend to be persecuted.  It’s the same mentality.

Here’s the reality.  Personal freedom is great, but it has to be tempered with personal responsibility. Nobody lives in a vacuum.  Whether you like it or not, you are part of a larger society that has needs and you, as a beneficiary of said society, need to be willing to sacrifice some of your personal freedoms for the good of larger society because in so doing, your life is made better, directly or indirectly, by the health and well-being of society.  There is a balance that has to be struck and this is something that a lot of libertarians simply can’t get through their head.  They want all freedom, no restrictions.  Reality simply doesn’t work that way.  Chaos lies down that path.

But then again, these people are often closet anarchists.  They see themselves as Lord Humongous of the wasteland, when in reality, they’re nothing more than Toadie, the pathetic loser that everyone laughs are and who doesn’t know what a waste of skin they actually are. These pseudo-anarchists wouldn’t last 10 minutes in the wasteland but they’ll never admit it, just like the libertarian ideology can’t make it in the real world, but delusional libertarians can’t get that through their heads.

It’s all quite sad when you think about it.

I Didn’t Get My Way, Therefore Government Bad!

Your typical libertarian

One thing that you can always count on the libertarians whining is “the government is evil!”  But the real reason they think the government is evil is because they don’t get their way.  Let’s be honest, if the government did what libertarians claim they want, they’d be fine with the government.  Okay, there probably wouldn’t be much government for them to be fine with, but you get my meaning.

Guess what?  Getting your way all the time is not how a democracy works.  People vote, or elect representatives to vote for them, and the majority wins.  If you’re not in the majority, you lose.  Welcome to reality!

And that’s why most libertarians aren’t all that hot on democracy.  People don’t vote the way they want them to vote, therefore they don’t really want people to vote at all.  It can’t be the stupid things that libertarians want or anything, it has to be that people are too dumb to know what’s good for them.  So it’s stupid people, incompetent voters and the government is bad, that’s the only explanation for why the libertarians aren’t in power, right?

They can’t accept that the vast majority of people have no interest whatsoever in living under a libertarian system.  Most people see right through the crazy beliefs that libertarians have.  Most people realize that an unrestricted, unregulated free market would be a complete clusterfuck.  Most people understand that the world doesn’t actually work the way libertarians seem to think that it should.  But then again, most people are stupid, right libertarians?  There’s always some excuse for why your ideology fails miserably in every single election.  It’s some grand conspiracy.  Not ridiculous ideas.  No, never.

If libertarian thought was going to take the country by storm, it would have done so in the last 50 years.  Instead, libertarian candidates for president have failed to even get 5% of the electorate.  But it’s always this time!  It’s always going to be amazing this election cycle!  Just wait and see!  And when it doesn’t happen, it’s never their fault, it’s stupid people, incompetent voters and bad government.  Nothing is ever their fault.  Ever.  That kind of thinking is how children operate.  I think that says something about most libertarians.

A Libertarian is Finally Honest!

I know I talk about natural rights a lot and the complete and utter failure of libertarians to actually back them up, even though they insist, without a shred of evidence, that they’re actually real.  I point out this failure every single time I find it and most of the time, libertarians still pretend that they’ve got a good reason to believe it, even though they can’t manage to produce that reason.

I also describe their political ideology as quasi-religious because everything they say is based on faith.

So finally, a libertarian who has done all of the above has come clean and admitted that he’s really got nothing.  He doesn’t recognize that he has nothing, of course, that’s exactly what he’s admitted.

I have proved it to MY satisfaction. My opinion on this matter is the only one that counts to me.

I will exercise my rights regardless whether you, anyone else, or any government says me yea or nay.

That is all the proof I need. :

Have you noticed all of the religious ideology he’s put in there?  All he cares about is his opinion.  He doesn’t care if it’s true, he cares if it makes him feel good.  He isn’t willing to listen to anyone who says any differently because he’s right because he wants to be right.  If you substituted “faith” for “rights” in the second line, you’d have the same thing that religious apologists say all the time.

These people are nuts, pure and simple.  They’re so nuts that they don’t even know that they’re nuts.  They are so completely out of touch with reality, out in libertarian la la land, that they can’t even conceive that they could possibly be wrong.  It doesn’t matter.  Reality is an inconvenience and logical reasoning is a trap.  For them, their quasi-religion is all that matters.  Interestingly enough, every single one of these libertarians that I’ve encountered who acts like this is also a fundamentalist Christian.  Crazy is crazy.

And you wonder why you can’t have rational discussions with libertarians?  This is why.

Libertarians: Getting it Ass-Backwards

I think I’ve finally realized what libertarians are doing wrong in their arguments about natural rights.  I don’t know if this is intentional or just a happy coincidence on their part, but I think this is why they have so many problems getting their ideas across.

See, at its core, natural rights is a philosophical position.  That’s perfectly fine.  But with all philosophical positions, you have to have an argument, you have to have support and be able to defend your views rationally.  That’s how philosophy works.  You can’t just make a pronouncement and pretend that everyone is going to take it seriously because you said it.  Now there have been plenty of books by famous philosophers who have put forth the idea of natural rights and spent lots of time trying to make an argument for them and that’s great.  I’m not convinced by those arguments and I’ve read Locke and Hobbes and Kant and Paine, but at least they tried.

But you have lots of modern libertarians who don’t have the mental wherewithal to put together a credible philosophical argument.  They know they like the idea of natural rights, they just don’t understand the ideological underpinnings. However, they desperately want these things to be real so they just claim that they are.  They claim that natural rights are a fact, but that brings with it other problems.  If you claim that something is an objective fact, you need to show how you came to that conclusion.  You need to produce objective evidence.  You need to show your work.  But, of course, they have no work, they have no evidence to present, they’re only claiming that it’s a fact because it seemed like an easier solution than having to put in the effort to defend a philosophical position.  So they’re left in this quasi-religious conundrum, where they have nothing to present, but they have a desperate need to believe.  All they can do is keep repeating their quasi-religious mantra over and over, hoping that repetition somehow makes it seem reasonable, but it doesn’t.

The problem is that both options require a defense but most of these libertarians just have no defense to provide.  They don’t understand the philosophy sufficiently to present credible arguments in support of their ideas and, because natural rights are not objectively real, they have no credible evidence to present that show them to be factually true.  All they can do is keep declaring that they’re “just true”.  No, they’re not.  They have to believe it though because it forms the basis of their entire political ideology and without the idea of natural rights, they’ve really got nothing.

You really can’t have an idea or make a claim and not have a defense.  Your say-so and  your desire for a thing to be true don’t make it true and it certainly won’t convince a skeptic that what you claim actually makes sense. You have to actually have a cohesive argument that convinces people that you have the slightest clue what you’re talking about.  And unfortunately, far too often, libertarians simply don’t.

Reality Has to Mean More than Fantasy

I came across a debate today, one that I wasn’t involved in, but you had a crazy libertarian on one side proclaiming that natural rights were real, so there, and on the other, you had a skeptic who kept asking him a lot of the same questions that I ask regularly.  Questions like “how do you know what natural rights are?” and “how do you objectively define what is a natural right and what is not?”  Well, our libertarian friend couldn’t, or more properly wouldn’t, answer any of the questions, he just kept repeating his unsupported claims over and over and over again.  He apparently doesn’t care about reality.

Two things occurred to me.  First, they have no idea how their core principles came about and second, that they have no clue how to get there rationally.  This reinforces my idea that libertarianism operates largely like a religion because the religious have the same two problems.  Neither of them are capable of getting back to core principles and explaining how they came about to anyone who doesn’t already swig the same Kool-Aid.  How do you objectively define a natural right?  They don’t know. How many natural rights are there?  They have no clue.  They lack a fundamental understanding of the core concepts of their own political philosophy.  And when they fail, all they can do, like the religious, is run back to their holy books.  “This is what Thomas Paine said” or “this is what John Locke said”.  I don’t care what they said, I’m not debating them, I’m debating you.  Show me that you know that you understand your philosophy in your own words.  They can’t do it.

The same is true of the religious.  Their core belief is that some god exists.  How do they know this?  They have no answers.  I want to know how you personally determined, on your own, that your god actually exists in objective reality.  I don’t care what your silly religious book says.  I don’t care what  your pastor says.  I’m not going to look at the trees.  I care what evidence you can present that supports your contention that this thing that you worship is actually real.  But they can’t do it.  They have no argument, they have no evidence, they just have blind faith, just like the libertarians.  If you can’t explain why you believe what you believe in your own words, demonstrating your own understanding of the belief, then you have no intellectual reason to believe it, period.

Both of these groups live in their own little fantasy world, where what they want to be true is more important than what is actually true.  When I point this simple fact out, I have been told, I shit you not, that it is unfair to require people to think rationally about their beliefs because being rational isn’t important.  Yeah, let me say that again: being rational isn’t important.

And you wonder why I think these two groups have problems.

“I’m Not Happy!”

I get so sick of hearing that, both from the liberal left and from the libertarians.  They’re just not happy with the way the world is, therefore they think the world needs to change to accommodate their precious little feelings.

Bullshit.

But these are both fundamentally different questions so they have to be addressed separately.  And because I spend a lot of time beating up on liberals, I’ll do libertarians first.

Libertarians, as I’ve said in the past, operate from a very “religious” position. They have “faith” that the things that they believe are true and because that “faith” is blind, they just demand that they have a point and anyone who refuses to acknowledge it, anyone who asks that they provide evidence for their claims, they brand heretics and go back to repeating their empty claims.  At their core, they are very unhappy about the way the world operates, and I can certainly sympathize with that because I’m unhappy about it too.  But where I acknowledge how the world really works, even if I don’t like it, they seem supremely convinced that the world really does operate as they wish it did, there’s just this vast conspiracy to keep them from getting their way.  This is where the striking similarities to religion come in.  The religious claim “even though we can’t prove it, there really is a god and he really has a plan and no matter how much you don’t believe it, we’re still right”.  The libertarians are the same way.  “Even though we can’t prove it, there really are these magical natural rights and they really are as wonderful as we’d like to think they are and no matter how much you don’t believe it, we’re still right.”  And they have blind faith that everything they believe is true and everything that everyone else believes is false. Only their view on rights matters.  If you argue that rights come from society, they don’t have an actual argument against it, they just stomp their feet and tell you that you’re wrong.  No support for their ideas, no evidence against yours.  It’s all faith.

And that’s really the thing, their ideology makes them happy and because virtually nobody else on the planet takes their ideology seriously, they’re constantly upset at everyone around them, just like little religious cults.  Everyone is out to get them and is a big meanie because they won’t acknowledge the inherent correctness of their beliefs.

Then there’s the liberals and their slower, stupider cousins, the progressives and the problems there are painfully obvious. Progressives are to liberals what the Tea Party are to conservatives, only stupider.  And that’s saying something. Just look at college campuses, where hyper-left students want nothing but safe spaces and speech codes, they don’t want to ever be faced with anything even the slightest bit uncomfortable and they want teachers stopped from teaching them anything that might trigger someone.  Somewhere.  Maybe.  These people are idiots and unfortunately, the current university system is such that administrators are so paranoid over potentially losing students that they’re willing to cater to these cry babies at the cost of actually providing a quality education and preparing these butt-hurt children for the real world.  You know, the things they’re getting paid for.

I am so tired of trying to talk to people who are ostensibly adults but act like they’re 3 years old.  I actually have seen 3-year olds who act better, who have more intelligence and maturity and credibility than these pathetic little whiners.  Why does anyone put up with these ridiculous emotional midgets?  When do we get to punch them in the face, tell them to grow a pair and fuck right the hell off?  Because that day cannot come too soon for me and I suspect for anyone reading this article as well.

The Constitution is not All

Got another one that got me in trouble.  I seem to do that a lot, don’t I?  Some crazy fundamentalist Christian libertarians started making a ruckus, claiming that because the Constitution doesn’t specifically grant the federal government the right to control marriage, the Supreme Court ruling is invalid and states get to decide who can get married and who cannot.

Yeah, I know, where do I find these idiots, right?

So I asked what if some state, hypothetically, decided to legalize child marriage, would that be fine?  Or, to answer another person, what if some state decided, theoretically, to legalize rape, would they be okay with it?  This is more applicable in the first question because, whether any of these people like it or not, marriage in the United States and indeed in most other places in the world is a civil contract.  It’s a legal, not a religious thing.  In the United States, what is legal and binding in one state, marriage-wise, is legal and binding in all states.  If someone got married in one state where said marriage is legal and moved to another state where said marriage was not legal, they would still have a legal marriage.  This has already been well-decided, there are no legal questions on this matter whatsoever.  So, just as gay couples went to states where gay marriage was legal, then went home to states where it was not and had to be treated like they were legally married, a couple could go to a state where child marriage was legal, then come back and move in next door to you.  Is that acceptable?

Not surprisingly, not a single one of my fundie Christian libertarians thought it was.  I guess state’s rights only work when it’s something you agree with, huh?  In fact, you can go wherever you want with this.  What if Utah, for example, decided to reintroduce polygamy.  Good, even if that means that all states are now effectively forced to accept polygamous couples?  Or what if some state gets taken over by fundamentalist Muslims who want to impose Sharia law and execute heretics?  Is that okay?  The Constitution actually forbids Congress from passing any law stopping it.  How many people do you think would follow a strict constitutional interpretation?  Not many, I wager.

The problem with these strict constitutionalists is that they don’t recognize that it just doesn’t work.  There are lots of things in the modern world that the founding fathers could never have imagined or foreseen.  The Constitution doesn’t mention a thing about speed limits on the nation’s highways, yet the federal government can issue a national speed limit, whether the libertarians like it or not.  The founding fathers had no way of knowing that cars would eventually exist.  They didn’t know about airplanes, but the federal  government controls the nation’s skies and controls where people are allowed to fly. They didn’t know about nuclear weapons, but if they had, they would absolutely have written into the 2nd amendment a limitation on private citizens owning them, no matter what the libertarians seem to think.  But they didn’t know so they didn’t include them.  The list goes on and on.  The farther we go, the less applicable the specifics in the Constitution actually are.  A lot of the concepts remain good ideas, but how they specifically apply to the modern world does not.  That’s why we have the Supreme Court, to make these determinations.  I’m pretty sure that if the founding fathers were around today, they’d be ashamed of what we’ve become and perhaps ashamed of no group more than the libertarians whose absurd worship of a piece of paper has stopped them from thinking for themselves.

But what can you expect from a group of people, like the ones in this particular example, who worship both the Constitution and the Bible and don’t stop to think about either?

The Natural Rights Idiots Are Back

I’ve been able to successfully avoid the crazy libertarians for a while, but I stumbled back into the fray, with crazed fanatics demanding that “natural rights” are real and therefore, their imaginary rights are being infringed upon. You know, those rights they can’t actually show are real?  Yeah, those rights.

But where do they come from?  Well, like the religious, they have no answer, they just assume that they do.  That is exactly why I compare the libertarians to the religious.  They both take concepts that they have an emotional attachment to.  They both pretend that because they are attached to them, that makes them real.  They both follow the appeal to authority, either listening to an ancient book of mythology or old philosophers and politicians as their “justification” and because they now feel justified, they base their entire philosophical position on the “fact” that they were right all along.  Of course that ignores the fact that they have never validated their initial assumption in the first place but they don’t let that stop them.

That’s a problem for anyone who actually cares about logic and reason, which apparently, these idiots do not.  I’m not saying they can’t want whatever they want.  They can say they want a magical unicorn for all I care.  It’s when you start saying that you actually have a magical unicorn without being able to trot it out that I become concerned.  These fools are claiming, entirely without evidence, with just a bunch of hand-waving, that said natural rights actually exist.  That is not sufficient to show that they really do.

Of course they don’t really care.  They only care that it makes them feel good, just like the religious.  So long as it satisfies that emotional itch they have, they’ll grab on tight and never let go.  But I actually care if the things I believe are factually true, not just emotionally convenient.  The second  you open your mouth and start making claims, you’ve gone beyond the right to believe whatever load of bullshit you want in your own head to making claims that you rationally need to justify.  Again, to compare the libertarians to the religious, both sides have tried to say “oh, it’s just my belief!”  Nope, not since you’ve been stating it as fact it isn’t.  It’s now a claim and claims need to be supported.  Get to work.

It’s enough to make you beat your head on a wall.

Liberals Hate Police

I was having a recent discussion about the case of a school field officer in South Carolina who was called by a teacher to handle a disruptive student, and was fired for brutality.  And you know something?  The whole student body came out in support of the officer, none of them are calling for his termination, but hey, the media rules these days and the left rules the media.

But anyhow, people were talking about whether he should have been fired and I was one of the few people who were arguing no.  Of course, the majority of people on the other side were either dyed-in-the-wool liberals or crazy libertarians who think that there is no such thing as legitimate authority and the police are all a bunch of thugs, so I guess I can’t be surprised.

So I started asking what Officer Fields should have done in that situation and the liberals were all hemming and hawing because they really didn’t have an answer.  They didn’t want him to throw the student across the room, but clearly, some kind of resolution was necessary and they just couldn’t come up with a solution.  “Clear the room!”  Okay, fine.  Now the room is clear, now what?  I’m going to assume that after the teacher told the student to leave the room and she refused and the officer told the student to leave the room, that no amount of telling the student to get out of the desk is going to work, no matter who does it.  She’s going to continue to sit in the desk and refuse to follow orders and continue to disrupt not only that class, but every other class for the day.  She wins.  That’s not acceptable.  Others said “call her parents!”  Great.  But most of these behavioral problems  begin at home, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find that the parent(s) don’t care how the girl acts or would respond.  I might say this is a good first step, if they had all day.  However, what if the parents either ignore the call or show up and refuse to help?  What then?  Eventually, every single liberal had to concede that physical force was necessary to resolve the situation.  Every single one, without exception.  So if what he did was necessary, what the hell is with all of the complaining?

Well, let me tell you, the only reason this guy lost his job is because of all of the bad press in the media.  That’s it.  It was to avoid losing face in the court of public opinion.  But even if he was guilty of excessive force, his boss was not the one to fire him. He could suspend him pending an investigation, of course, but in virtually all police forces, termination decisions are made by civilian oversight committees.  They are made with input from the police unions.  These decisions are not made by someone emotionally reacting to potential fallout from an event.  The officer has already retained legal counsel and they are going after the police department for wrongful termination.

Now yes, this entire situation was regrettable, but the blame for the situation wasn’t on the cop.  It wasn’t on the teacher.  It wasn’t on the school.  It was on the student.  If she had not misbehaved in the first place, nothing would have happened.  If she had left the classroom when the teacher told her to, nothing would have happened.  If she would have obeyed the command of the officer, nothing would have happened.  All of this is because we had a student who has never been taught to respect authority and do as they are told by those who have legal authority over them.  That’s the problem, but it’s a problem that idiot liberals and libertarians don’t seem to comprehend.

Environmental Hypocrisy on the Left

Wait in the car, keep the engine running, I’ll be right back.

I love how you get the crazies on the environmental left who scream that the sky is falling, they try to get laws passed that hurt people, so long as they “save the planet”, but none of these people are really buying the crap they’re peddling.  They’re not out there living off the land, they’re not producing zero emissions, they’re polluting as much, if not more than anyone around them, but they can because they’re rich.

So take SB 350, a California bill that would have required Californians to cut our gasoline usage in half by 2030, among other things.  They were going to put it in the hands of the AQMD, the air management board, with no explanation for how this might actually be done. The reality is, they could never achieve it without either draconian gas rationing, putting a transponder on your car to track how much and where you drive, or by raising taxes to such a degree that nobody could afford to drive.  Luckily, there were enough Californians who saw through that impending disaster that they insisted their representatives remove that part from the bill, but the rest still got passed by Governor Moonbeam. But the people responsible?  They’re just trying to buy votes from the crazy liberals in San Francisco, they really don’t care about the message at all.

So sponsor Senator Kevin De Leon goes to the official media event for this bill that’s supposed to clean up the air by providing more electric cars, then leaves his chauffeured Chevy Suburban running for more than 2.5 hours so the air conditioning will be on when he gets  back in the car.  Sure, that’s ecologically responsible, isn’t it? Governor Jerry Brown left the event to get on an airplane that dumps 100 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere every mile flown. These people do not care about the environment.

And they claim they want to put more electric cars on the road with more charging stations in poor neighborhoods, when they are already claiming that too many people bought electric cars and the gas tax isn’t collecting enough money to keep the roads repaired.  It isn’t like they actually used any of the gas tax money to maintain the roads now, but hey, give them more money! Their only real choice is to either jack up the gas taxes again, already among the highest in the nation, or to start charging people who bought electric cars and hybrids money.  And how can they justify that  because these vehicles don’t use any real separate consumables.  You plug your car in.  You can certainly put a tax on the electricity but how do you determine what’s going to cars and what’s not?  So do you just charge everyone more for their power?  That’ll go over well.  And what about the people who put solar panels on their roofs and are living entirely off the grid?  What then?  They already have the power companies complaining that they’ve lost too many customers already and want to raise rates for the rest of us, in fact, they even want to charge people who aren’t consuming any power at all to pay money to the power companies to keep them afloat.  None of this is economically feasible no matter how you spin it.

If these people aren’t willing to walk the walk as they talk the talk, why should they expect the rest of us to?  They aren’t leading the way, they’re playing “do as I say, not as I do”.   It amazes me that people can’t see what’s coming down the road at them, that what they’re saying out of the left side of their mouth makes no sense when compared to what’s coming out the right. They want to get gas-powered cars off the road, but with fewer gas powered cars, they can’t afford to keep up the roads. They want people to use clean, renewable energy, but when they do, the coffers of the big energy companies, which the government of California lives in their pockets, lose money and we can’t have that.  Why does no one listen and point out the gross hypocrisy of the environmental left?  Because the left has no clue and no brains.

Losing Their Shit

I could have predicted this, in fact I did, and as usual, it came true. I recently did a video about the fundamentalist religion of libertarianism, in which I predicted, accurately, that I’d have libertarians coming out and screaming at me because I’d somehow offended them by making a video all about them and how awful I was because I’d made them look bad.

No, they made themselves look bad and it’s really funny to watch them rant and rave about how bad *I* am that they are reacting the way that *THEY* are.  It’s more evidence of the abject emotional insecurity of humanity.

First off, I already said that I was only talking about a particular set of libertarians, I was very specific in my video, but the people who came back at me, one in particular, was screaming that he was not that way at all.  Then why is he responding? He already knows, if he watched the video, that I’m not talking about him, but just  by his very response, it’s painfully clear that I am and he knows it, he just doesn’t want to be honest about it.

There’s this really weird human reaction that if  you use a word that someone uses in relation to themselves, even if you’re clearly not talking about them, even if they clearly don’t fit into whatever you’re talking about, they have to get mad because somehow, your criticism of other people reflects  badly on them.  This is a very immature reaction.

And of course, it isn’t just the libertarians that do it, that’s just the most recent example.  Liberals.  Feminists. Conservatives. Christians. Muslims. All of them are equally guilty.  They are more concerned with the label they choose to wear than the content of the discussion going on.  They don’t even care if what you’re saying is completely accurate, if it makes them feel bad, they drop trou and spray feces on everyone and that’s a problem.

Seriously, shouldn’t the actual content be more important than how the discussion makes you feel?  This is why the religious have such a problem having a rational discussion about things like abortion and gay marriage.  The idea disgusts them on an emotional level and they are unable to rise above it.  The feelings are all that matters.  The same goes for libertarians and their claims about statism and natural law and all of that.  It doesn’t make any sense, they cannot demonstrate any of it, but if you criticize it, they freak out.  Or liberals who can’t talk about feminism or racism or gender politics without throwing around words like “misogyny” in an irrational attempt to smear their detractors.  It’s why so many important discussions these days are at a complete stand still, because you have two sides who can do no more than fling poo at each other.

So anyhow, here’s the video, you can go over to YouTube to see the comments if you really want, but I’m sure you’ve run into this plenty of times yourself.  It really is sad, isn’t it?  Can’t people just talk intellectually without losing their shit?

[youtuber youtube=’http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2ieCCRPFbk’]

That Old Time Libertarian Religion

Social ContractIf there’s anything that doing a YouTube channel has taught me, it’s that libertarians are crazy.  In every comment I get from them, it becomes harder and harder to tell the difference between them and fundamentalist Christians.  There is nothing but blind faith and empty assertions in their ideas and when you point that out, they just double down on the stupidity.

In that, there’s really no difference between the ideas of the libertarian and the ideas of the religious, or, let’s be honest, the ideas of the conspiracy theorist.  You only have to look at the comments on videos like this one or this one to see how clear that is. There really is no fundamental difference between libertarianism and creationism, you have people who are denying demonstrable reality in favor of their daft desires to live in a world that doesn’t happen to be the one they actually live in.  No amount of evidence matters.  If it goes against their religious beliefs or political ideologies, it has to be wrong.

So much of this comes down to dealing with the reality of the social contract.  I recently had someone state that the social contract doesn’t exist, which demonstrably does, but he just doesn’t like the idea, so it magically poofs away in a cloud of irrationality.  He suggests that it’s like saying that because a woman chooses to go eat dinner with a man, she agrees to be raped by him.  Okay, let’s ignore the fact that nobody can, by definition, agree to be raped.  If you agree, it isn’t rape.  How he didn’t realize that one is beyond me.  But still, the use of rape is just an emotional tool, pretty much nobody but rapists actually like rape, therefore you’ve got an automatic negative emotional reaction to the proposition which then gets transferred to the idea that you’re comparing it to.  This is old, dishonest and very common, but anyone with half a clue sees right through it.

Therefore, let’s not talk about rape.  Say you go out to eat at a restaurant.  You are obligated to pay for the food that you consume.  If you don’t, if you try to walk out without paying, you are stopped, the police are called, you are handcuffed and put in the back of a police car, taken to jail, etc.  You don’t get to say “but I didn’t agree to pay!”  Sure you did.  It’s inherent in the transaction.  You have agreed, by your participation in the transaction, to carry your end of the bargain, whether you like it or not.  If you don’t like it, by all means, don’t take part in the transaction.  Don’t go to the restaurant.  Don’t eat the food. Whining that you’re hungry but don’t want to pay for it has no impact on this reality.

The same is true of the social contract.  It has existed in every single society in the history of mankind and always will.  If there are laws, if there are rules and regulations, there is a social contract because people are expected and in fact obligated to follow the laws of the land or face penalties for failing to do so.  That’s what the social contract is.  It is the inherent expectation that people within a society are going to follow the rules set up by that society or face the consequences for not doing so.  There is no way to opt out and you never have to opt in.  You agree to it as a consequence of being part of that society.  The only way out of it is to physically get up and bodily leave the society and find another that you find more acceptable, assuming they’re willing to take you in.  Or you can go find an unclaimed island somewhere and set up your own society, define your own rules and laws and then, you’ll be holding everyone who lives there accountable to your own social contract.  I’m sure the crazy libertarian’s brains will implode at the thought.  Even if there was a libertarian society where the concept of “no force” was in place, that “no force” would be part of the social contract!  Too bad these political wingnuts have no rational thought processes or they’d know that.

It really is no wonder that nobody takes libertarians seriously, except for other libertarians, just like nobody takes the religious seriously, except for other members of their cult.  No one should, these people are completely irrational in their ideas and completely unable to step back and see just how irrational they really are.  As such, ignoring them and/or pointing and laughing seems to be the only worthwhile responses to their insanity.  Since I spend so much time pointing out the idiocy of religion, I have no problem expanding that to crazed political ideologies as well.

Pie-in-the-Sky vs. Reality

PieintheSky-262x300In a recent discussion with a libertarian, he asked why I criticize a lot of their ideas because, as he points out, the world would be a lot better if we just implemented all of the libertarian ideas.  Sure.  That might be true, at least for some subset of those ideas, but that’s not the way the world works.  Hell, the world would be a much better place to live if religion just went away, everyone stopped thinking irrationally and just behaved logically. It would be a wonderful planet if all disease magically vanished and everyone had a trillion dollars in their bank accounts. It’s a great thought, it just isn’t going to happen and we actually have to deal with reality as it is, not as we wish it was.

That’s actually a problem that I run into a lot, people who are so enamored with an imaginary, magical world where everything is perfect that they’re convinced that kind of world either really exists or is possible to achieve.  I disagree.  There are some problems we will never solve, at least not in the short term.  Sure, I can foresee a day that medical science might eliminate the vast majority of diseases and genetic disorders, but that day is not today.  It is not tomorrow.  It isn’t going to be in my lifetime and probably not in the lifetime of my children.  So let’s stop pretending that we shouldn’t vaccinate our kids and deal with the world as it actually is.  So far as we know, there isn’t a magical land we all go to when we die and even if there were, that doesn’t mean we should needlessly squander the resources we have in this life because you think it doesn’t actually matter.  To quote Nick Fury, “Until such time as the world ends, we will act as though it intends to spin on.”  That means you don’t burn down the forests, just because you think some imaginary man-god is coming back to pick you up.

Unfortunately, this seems prevalent across all manner of issues; religious, social, political, you name it.  People pretend that just  because they can invent some magical land in their head that really. really appeals to them, that must be true and we can all bring it about if we just try hard enough.  That’s not realistic.  The magical land that Christians want isn’t realistic.  The imaginary world that libertarians want isn’t realistic.  The planet where everyone links arms and sings kumbaya that a lot of liberals seem to want, that isn’t realistic either.  It’s time to do away with the fantasy and deal with the reality on reality’s terms. I don’t care how much you want to live forever, you’re not going to.  I don’t care how much you want everyone to believe in your version of some imaginary god, that’s not the way it’s going to be.  Lower your sights, deal with the world as it really is, not how you wish it might be, and maybe we can solve some problems with actual solutions, not pie-in-the-sky fantasies.

Natural Rights Loons Drive Me Crazy

libertarians-are-crazyI guess it’s time for another one of those “why are these people so crazy and irrational” posts, owing the the fact that I’ve gotten myself involved, once again, in a debate with libertarians who cannot demonstrate that natural rights actually exist, they just keep repeating that they do over and over and over again.

I’ve said before that belief in natural rights is pretty much identical to religious faith, but it occurs to me that I don’t think I’ve ever run into anyone who believed in natural rights and wasn’t religious.  That’s not saying it can’t happen, I just can’t remember anyone I’ve debated that wasn’t also a theist and I think that’s important.  Of the three libertarians trying desperately to defend their blind faith in natural rights, all of them are fundamentalist Christians.

So anyhow, here’s one quote I wanted to pull to show how bat shit insane these people really are.:

you don’t seem to understand why I find natural rights to be so important. they are part of a philosophy that exists. trying to impose one concept of existence on “things” that are not defined that way is stupid. Does say “roman catholicism” exist? or angry atheism? sure they do-but not the same way say Iron ore or helium gas exists. same with Natural rights vs. a concrete block

Sure they do, but you can point to them in the real world, you can define what they mean and you can differentiate between the two.    I can define what constitutes Catholicism and produce evidence that such a thing actually exists in the real world.  I can define what atheism is and again, produce objective evidence for it’s existence.  Apparently, these libertarians can’t do that with natural rights.  They seem to think there’s a difference between legal rights and natural rights but they just can’t explain it.  They just have an emotional reaction to it.  They want natural rights to exist, the same way they want gods to exist.  These people are also ardent founding father worshippers.  One is saying that because Thomas Jefferson said something, it has to be true because… Thomas Jefferson.  It’s the same thing as claiming that the Bible has to be true because… the Bible.  And yes, they do use that argument, no matter how pathetic that it is.  Of course, I became a heretic when I said I didn’t care what Thomas Jefferson said, I only cared about demonstrable reality.  That didn’t go over well.

To be honest, I get tired of the dance for the same reason I tire of debating fundamentalist Christians.  They have no interest in listening and I have no interest in compromising.  They have no way of providing objective evidence or logical arguments to support their claims and I am not going to accept less.  If you can’t make your case intellectually, then you’ve lost.  It doesn’t stop these people from making the same claims that the religious do, often the exact same claims that the religious do, and ignoring any and all challenges because they are emotionally attached to their beliefs, but it isn’t a worthwhile argument either. What’s the point when “because!” is the only argument they can make?  It’s like debating with a 6-year old.  I really don’t see the point.