It All Becomes Clear To Me Now
Apr. 10th, 2015 09:54 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chris_gerribI've always been a bit puzzled by some (many) of the positions taken by such noted "libertarians" as Rand Simberg. Then ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
catsittingstill pointed me at this four-part article on last year's Sad Puppies eruption. See, if you think that "taxation is theft," logically any time the government (via police) or an individual kills somebody, you would expect to demand a full investigation. What's more "theft" than to take somebody's life? Yet many "libertarians" seem to be police apologists.
At any rate, part three of the series, So, The Sad Puppies, Then: 3 of 4 — “Libertarian” Authoritarians And Pulp was an eye-opener. The author postulates that a core set of libertarian values are:
Government is the only enemy of liberty, or the only one worth bothering with
“An armed society is a polite society” — guns make people behave
Securing the borders is one of only two legitimate functions of government
“There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” — economics is a zero-sum game, and if you’re giving someone government welfare handouts, you must be taking them from someone else, who actually earned them.
He then points out that the "authoritarian personality" are people who believe authoritarian submission (following leaders, and believing that it’s right to follow leaders), authoritarian aggression (a dislike of the unlike, an aggression towards members of groups designated “other” by the leaders), and conventionalism (adhering to rigid norms and belief that others should follow those norms).
Well, if you believe the above, securing the borders and shooting people are great ways to stick it to the out-group. Since the Federal government has been, since the 1960s, the defender of the out-group via civil rights and anti-discrimination, being anti-Fed makes sense. If you don't think you get government handouts (Social Security and Medicare don't count as "handouts") then it's easy to be against that.
Like I said, the article was a real eye-opener.
catsittingstill pointed me at this four-part article on last year's Sad Puppies eruption. See, if you think that "taxation is theft," logically any time the government (via police) or an individual kills somebody, you would expect to demand a full investigation. What's more "theft" than to take somebody's life? Yet many "libertarians" seem to be police apologists.At any rate, part three of the series, So, The Sad Puppies, Then: 3 of 4 — “Libertarian” Authoritarians And Pulp was an eye-opener. The author postulates that a core set of libertarian values are:
Government is the only enemy of liberty, or the only one worth bothering with
“An armed society is a polite society” — guns make people behave
Securing the borders is one of only two legitimate functions of government
“There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” — economics is a zero-sum game, and if you’re giving someone government welfare handouts, you must be taking them from someone else, who actually earned them.
He then points out that the "authoritarian personality" are people who believe authoritarian submission (following leaders, and believing that it’s right to follow leaders), authoritarian aggression (a dislike of the unlike, an aggression towards members of groups designated “other” by the leaders), and conventionalism (adhering to rigid norms and belief that others should follow those norms).
Well, if you believe the above, securing the borders and shooting people are great ways to stick it to the out-group. Since the Federal government has been, since the 1960s, the defender of the out-group via civil rights and anti-discrimination, being anti-Fed makes sense. If you don't think you get government handouts (Social Security and Medicare don't count as "handouts") then it's easy to be against that.
Like I said, the article was a real eye-opener.