It is this absurdity that defines the LP's political irrelevance and the futility of the behavior of its members. by Jahfre Fire Eater
(libertarian)
Friday, October 2, 2009
It's the eternal struggle for the defense of liberty that most libertarians cannot grasp, and instead, desperately, attempt to avoid.
Can you imagine a football team whose strategy is to force the other team to leave the field forever? Can you imagine a team defining victory, exclusively, as having no opponents left to play? Can you imagine a team whose entire program, training, recruiting and finances revolved around these objectives? Can you imagine a team whose best and brightest players waste their prime years trying to precisely redefine the game so as to eliminate all competition?
That ridiculous notion is the foundational tenet of the Libertarian Party. It is this obvious absurdity that defines the LP's political irrelevance and the futility of the behavior of its members. Absurd? Why? Because only massive oppression can eliminate the competition and end the struggle. Even then, after such crushing oppression is instituted, someone new might decide to take the field and so the overpowering force must be applied again, and again, and again. The only way to achieve the common Libertarian utopia is through the eternal application of overwhelming force to create freedom from the struggle.
All who pursue freedom from the struggle are enemies of my liberty for that reason. Liberty is the struggle, not the oppressive elimination of the opponents of liberty. Advocating the elimination of the State is another manifestation of this self-contradictory waste of good minds and too short lives. Those are lives spent undermining the defense of liberty by behaving in ways that only rally its opponents in an ever-escalating race to achieve that world-changing oppression.
Fueling this widespread destructive behavior is the fallacious belief that unalienable rights exist in the real world in which humans live. I've described this self-defeating fallacy in detail in my recent article, What Right Do I Have? In that article I assert that absolutely no rights exist except those one is actively exercising, defending or opposing. The fear-based clinging to the notion of unalienable rights tends to moot the efforts of those who are fully engaged in the struggle. How one decides to define or qualify the right: property, life, etc. is irrelevant. None of these exist, except in the abstract, yet that is generally where they are thought to come from., manifested from nothing by pure force of meticulous definition. The real world show this to be false every day.
Recent NolanChart.com articles manifesting this fear-based absurd rationalization by the enemies of my liberty are too numerous to list here, but, one only has to read a handful to discover them. Libertarians, it seems, can seldom write about anything else...and I can hardly write anything but expositions of these attacks on my defense of liberty. It is this one single aspect that most clearly defines the difference between libertarianism and secular conservatism. (and the dreadful similiarities between Progressives, Authoritarians and Libertarians) Secular conservatism, based on the Conservative High-5 principles: Rule of Law, Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Enterprise and the defense of these principles from oppression.
Secular conservatism allows individuals to create communities. Libertarianism eschews community in deference to the mass delusion called unalienable rights. In the real world communities exist; secular conservatism ensures communities remain small and diverse. In a secular conservative framework there is no force and no oppression of the range of non-violent human behavior.
Individuals are free to leave communities as well as form them but they cannot demand freedom from them. "Freedom from" is nothing more than a code word for "Oppression of." Libertarians seem to think playing these word games of politically correct phraseology shields them from consequences in the real world just as it does in their own minds. I'm here today, and every day to burst that bubble, exposing the real world that so few libertarians, academics and navel-gazers can see.
For any reader who might have just had their bubble burst , and who is beginning to see the scam they have been fooled by as it really is....you're welcome. Now leave the herd to its mooing in unison and get out there to start exercising, defending or opposing rights as you see fit. Liberty is in the struggle; rights are in the actions not the abstractions.
-Jahfre Fire Eater
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 12
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Jahfre Fire Eater only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Jahfre Fire Eater is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Geno Canto del Halcon
Date: 2009-10-02 07:28:04
That's strange. I don't remember ever reading any of this in any Libertarian publication before. And I've been involved with the LP for more than 30 years. While "Jahfre Fire Eater"'s comments might represent a few libertarians, they run far afield from reality.
While one might conclude that Obama won his campaign with a "form over substance" approach against basically no opposition that induced the herd to push and the liberal progressives to pull him through. It's amusing to me that the current LP continues to employ a strategy of substance and principle but with little or no "form". Even if our President and the liberals controlling things continue to self destruct as they surely will... the LP and their current strategy will stand no chance of having anyone elected!
Posted By: Joel S. Hirschhorn
Date: 2009-10-02 13:44:55
One of the best intellectual expressions I have read in years; right on in my opinion. Of course, narrow minded Libertarians will be unable to appreciate it; most are mentally chained by constantly repeated rhetoric.
It seems you have enumerated unalienable rights quite well without even realizing it. I have yet to read your essay regarding the existence of rights, but will soon. Taking a page out of George Carlin so far, it sounds like. Fiery rhetoric with comedy sprinkled in may work for standup, but it is not sound philosophy.
Unalienable rights are a truth in themselves strictly by the definition that they cannot be suppressed no matter the level of restrictions.
As you say, unalienable rights are proven by action, not in abstracts. They are often the application of laden abilities we all have- whether it be self-defense, expression, etc.
Another point- your article subjects libertarianism as a whole to the LP's personal brand it happened to sign off on. I do not believe the LP is right on every issue, and the plain fact that it fails to unify all libertarians is symbolic. The idea seems to be based around the concession that all libertarian thought exists in some vacuuous, end-game state. And I would add that many prominent libertarian speakers, such as Rothbard, but by all means not all, have endorsed in this principle-first, reality-later mantra you label them with.
I'm a huge fan of Thomas Jefferson, but I must admit that I can't quite agree with the notion he expressed in the Declaration of Independence; that all men are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Unalienable implies they cannot be taken away. But throughout history men have been denied those rights. Certainly under Hitler, the Jews had their lives, their liberty and their pursuit of happiness taken from them.
In the next sentence Jefferson says: "That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men." Well I somewhat agree with that. I don't think communist governments were created for that purpose, but at least our government was created for that purpose ...well at least for white men. But the important part, in my opinion is that our government was created to secure our rights. If you are unfortunate enough to live under a government that does not secure your rights then brother you don't have them. In the US our constitution secures our right to freedom of speech even if we criticize the government. But try exercising that right in China or North Korea. You'll end up dead or in prison.
So securing our rights is vitally important. Our constitution does that. Recognizing that fact, I vote for candidates who support the constitution.
Now when it comes time to vote these are usually our choices:
Democrats who hate the right to keep and bear arms, and who seek a much bigger and more powerful government than the constitution allows. They also frequently propose mandatory service laws that clearly violate one's right to liberty as well as the 13th amendment. And they like to take our liberty by forcing compliance to their ideas, i.e banning incandescent light bulbs, smoking, fat foods etc.
Republicans are currently controlled by neo-cons. They believe in perpetual undeclared wars. And Bush also violated the hell out of the constitution in the Jose Padilla case. Padilla is a US citizen. He was arrested in the US and labeled an enemy combatant. He was not allowed habeas corpus as required by the constitution. He was not given due process of law as required by the 5th amendment, nor a trial as required by the 6th amendment. In fact he was not even charged! He was just thrown in jail. Bush also expanded medicare by adding a prescription drug plan even though no part of the constitution authorizes the federal government to be involved in health care.
And both of the above parties supported the TARP bill, another violation of the constitution.
Next is the party that stole the name I wanted, the Constitution Party. They do tend to support the constitution although at times they seem to be controlled by the religious right. And I wonder if they might encroach on the part about; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Still I think Chuck Baldwin would have been a better president than Obama or McCain.
There are other parties that lean toward socialism so they aren't on the radar for me.
Then there is the Libertarian party. They almost always support the constitution and they're believers in freedom. I like that. So I voted LP in the last four presidential elections. I guess that makes me a Libertarian. What else should I have been; a Democrat? A Republican? a Naderite???? Of all the choices available (not counting Ron Paul) I think the Libertarians would do the best job of securing our rights. Do you disagree?
What foolishness is this? Are you forgetting there is a difference between the words "unalienable" and "inalienable"? Inalienable are just fancy words for privileges. Unalienable rights can NEVER be surrendered.
Example: You can torture and subjugate all you want, quell all violent resistance, a la Ingsoc from 1984. And you know what? There will still be people who resist with their minds!
You can't control people's minds (at least in the complex way that is required to eliminate all resistant thought). Those that think so are tin-foil hatters who would rather lump secret societies in with omnipotent Gods that control their fate. These are not the same people who preach about "God-given" rights.
Well, from the title I hope to find some actual assertion of fundamental flaw in Libertarianism. Instead I see a diatribe against Anarchist political theory, and commentary totally sidestepping Libertarian theory.
Libertarian political theory does not purport to totally do away with government (which is Anarchism), or even centralized government. It promotes doing away with what it asserts government has no moral charter in regulating.
Among several derived fundamentals, libertarian eschews any governmental scheme to 'redistribute wealth', or more simply put the forcing of one citizen to pay for benefits of another. Included in this prohibition is the involuntary funding of "public projects". Once again though, public projects could easily be funded and effected by government, IF the people directly agree/vote for such.
Key element there is 'to force'. Libertarianism does not discourage the voluntary donation or charity therein.
Another fundamental that you ignore, is the fundamental that goverment has no moral (or actual) right to regulate (what currently passes for) public morality upon individuals' behavior. If what a person does, does not have an explicit effect of his legal duty to another person, then government has no place in regulating it.
These are just a couple of fundamentals in libertarianism 101,
As to the other points you raise, in re Inalienable Rights.
You complain of the mass of libertarians who support this idea.
Well, I guess I am not one of those you talk of.
Although the idea of Inalienable Rights is cute, and magically idealistic, and oh-so wonderful if only believing it hard enough would make it true, it is obviously a pseudo-religious idea trying to pass for an actual existent law of nature.
In saying this I do not detract from the sentiment, this is the way it should be, mankind wanting to believe in some existance in Nature that rises above simple survival of the fittest.
But, as it pointed out, inalienable rights means physically incapable of breaching. Yet these 'rights' are breached all the time, virtually everywhere, even within the magical confines where they are proclaimed to be true.
The idealistic wishful thinking notwithstanding, these rights have other reasons for being enforced; they are a foundation for prosperous civil life, both for the individual and consequenetly for the society as a whole.
So, there is no need to denigrate the idea behind fundamental rights, even if they are not so 'God Given' as the preamble implies. They simply are a "Really Good Idea", that should be enforced by the society that respects them enough to incorporate them into the Constitution of their nation.
Posted By: Steve LaBianca
Date: 2009-10-04 21:47:29
If I thought that people reading this article would read a necessarily long refutation of this article, I'd write it. At this point though, I'll just say that this author makes the mistake that so many novices make - the difference between philosophical principles and strategy to reclaim or defend them.
Posted By: Steve LaBianca
Date: 2009-10-04 21:49:52
If I thought that people reading this article would read a necessarily long refutation of this article, I'd write it. At this point though, I'll just say that this author makes the mistake that so many novices make - differentiating between philosophical principles and strategy to reclaim or defend them.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2009-10-29 19:56:48
Thanks everyone for your comments. It is encouraging to run into an occasional individual with an open mind when the world is so full of closed minds mooing in unison.
The bottom line is that any fantasy or utopian vision of the world that depends on homogeneity, such as the libertarian "freedom from" dream world, is not possible outside the minds of the faithful. Any strategy that has at its core the phrase, "if everyone would just...." should be immediately dismissed as it is not a possible solution. EVERYBODY WON'T. The only way to achieve a goal that depends on everyone doing and thinking the same way is through force and unrelenting oppression. There is no other answer. That is why the LP is a useless sandbox and not a valuable political tool. It never can be because it only attracts folks who think reason can result in homogeneity. Nonsense breeds nonsense...eventually that incestuous thought pattern turns out like LewRockwell.com. Bovine like group-think is fine for the navel-gazing academic herd but nothing politically useful can ever result.
I'm not here to join the herd, I'm here to instigate some enabled citizens to more effective political pursuits. The rest? Not my concern. Fortunately, NolanChart.com can never become a closed choir due to it's open nature. Once again, Walt, tip of my hat to you for making this valuable forum a reality.
Till next time I have the time to poke holes in the mantra chanting status quo....
Posted By: Mrs. Fire Eater
Date: 2009-10-30 08:54:05
Just some points in both the article and comments I found interesting:
There seems to be some confusion between being a libertarian in philosophy or theory, and being one in practicality, such as trying to force a utopian vision on others, or by self-marginalization in a "party" of 3% which amounts to a tiny little useless club. I'm not addressing the math, here, just that this happens all over, with the libs and the Dem party and the Cons and the GOP, etc. I'm a libertarian. I'm also a registered Republican. Party affiliation, personal ideals and principles, and faith-based adherence to utopian brainfarts aren't the same thing. Sometimes it's confusing what anyone is talking about when they say "libertarian" or "liberal" or "republican" etc.and sometimes it seems the definition can change mid-sentence. Annoying.
The other is the idea of "inalienable" vs. "unalienable" rights, as if by saying a right is this or that implies that it "cannot be taken away." Those words are legal terms with specific definitions, and anyone's feelings about what their personal rights are have no bearing on those definitions. "Inalienable" means a right that may be sold, such as a property right. "Unalienable" means a right that may not be sold, such as a right to life. But those are legal definitions - Walter Block and other anarcholibs would say if your life is yours, you should have the right to sell it, because it is a property right. Sure thing, I could go for that in theory. In practice, those words are only relevant in court, and waxing poetic about un vs. in as some kind of important distinction about rights is kind of waste of time. The only rights you have are the ones you claim and defend, or that others claim and defend on your behalf. Everything else is just lawyers and judges justifying their existence.
Just some notes. Thanks for writing, hubby, and thanks to the commenters, too for their feedback. Interesting subject and responses.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
