No phonetic pun intended. by Jahfre Fire Eater
(libertarian)
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The only thing less relevant to me than what label one might self-apply is what label they might apply to me.
The only thing that matters is what politically constructive actions are taken by individuals; not what labels they wear. These labels are the result of turning adjectives about actions into nouns about the actors for the purpose of obfuscation and manipulation of large groups (herds) of actors. The label one wears or is "assigned" while taking those actions is irrelevant to the consequences of their actions. This is especially true in the world of politics where the use of labels to divide and conquer otherwise like-minded individuals is a pervasive tactic...because it works so well on large segments of voters.
So, I'm not going to debate your suggested definitions; once the dictionary is abandoned all options are available. After all, how one defines labels actually defines their perspective even though the labels may say absolutely nothing about any other individual to whom one might apply them.
I've been called every name in the book over the years but I don't cringe over them. In fact, I always consider the source with the understanding that how they use labels defines them to themselves and to the rest of the world. I can learn a great deal about others by simply hearing the labels they choose for themselves and others.
I'm not anti-labeling though. I'll use these labels just as blithely as the next person. I tend to use labels to describe the cumulative behavior of a group even though the specific actions of individuals within the group may vary widely. This is why the only label I will self-apply is "individual." I will not accept nor defend the umbrella behavior of any label that applies to a group. My political activism involves many specific behaviors. Trying to apply a general label to a variety of individual actions is an exercise in futility and self-marginalization. That is the point of the divide-and-conquer strategy embodied in the ceaseless defining, labeling and nit-picking amongst the fringe voters and pathological herd-joiners...keeping individuals from acting as individuals while they seek out the herd sporting their "perfect" label.
On the bookshelf beside me are tombs by Russell Kirk, Murray Rothbard, Edmund Burke, Hayek, von Mises, Aquinas, Spooner, Chomsky, Bastiat, Blackstone, Beaucamp, C.S. Lewis and on and on. I also am surrounded by reference and history books on the birth of our nation and evolution of political systems; books on evolution of US politics from colonial times to through the Articles of Confederation and from the ratification of the US Constitution to the present. What I see is that the language changes but the manipulation for political advantage doesn't. Labels are just tools of the day, of the moment for the purpose of the user. Political labels are not cast in stone. This drives the definition-driven, hair-splitting, divide-and-conquer practitioners batty. For them no constructive action can be taken until and unless all the labels and definitions have been cast in stone at the finest imaginable granularity--eusuring they never have to face the futility of their inaction or politically irrelevant compulsive actions.
Politics is the art of capturing voters at the margins of the thick herd in the center. Political herd masters encourage everyone who is not in that targeted segment of voters to self-marginalize, to divide, define and label, to emote strong feelings about liberty while taking little of no constructive actions that have consequences which can manifest those strong feelings in the real world.
As a point of comparison, here is how I interpret the Nolan Chart labels when I encounter someone who self-applies them:
1. Libertarian - Noun, a member of the Libertarian Party (LP). Generally has little or no idea of the relationship between actions and consequences in the realm of politics. Folks who choose this self-marginalizing behavior are avid herd-joiners who gravitate towards participation in divide-and-conquer, navel-gazing irrelevant debate and who practice little or no constructive political behavior. This is more a faith-based organization more than a political organization because the actions of the believers have little impact on the world outside the congregation. Often will not be able to distinguish between the abstract and the real with respect to action and consequences; thus, they cannot grasp the relevant distinction between the abstract goal of "smallest possible government" and the tangible goal of limited government. To those who can grasp the difference but just haven't seen it yet, the goal of pursuing the smallest possible government can only be achieved by direct oppression of individuals, limited government oppresses the institution, not individuals. To me that is the key that places most libertarians in a tiny cage of their own making. Many also seem to believe that thinking something is right is the same as its being real. Most Libertarians are also libertarians.
1a. non-Libertarian libertarian - Adjective, someone who talks about defending liberty but has not taken the deliberately self-marginalizing action of joining the LP. The small-"l" libertarians range from the politically clueless non-participants and independents and seekers of "freedom from" things they dislike, to the epitome of politically savvy, constructive, libertarian behavior as manifested by Dr. Ron Paul.
2. Conservative - Noun, meaningless. Since this label is often self-applied by folks who practice non-conservative (adj) political behavior it convey's very little information about an individual's actions even if they self-apply it. Since their non-conservative behavior is rationalized by any of a number of schools of thought and religious faith this label conveys no information about those individual choices. Since this label is applied by opponents to folks who advocate non-conservative (adj) political actions this label also carries very little information about an individual when applied to them by a third party either. Since the label "Conservative" indicates nothing about the economic paradigm one advocates it can't be used to align folks economically. At least the capital "L" Libertarian defines an action, their choice of political party affiliation, Conservative doesn't even convey that tiny tidbit of information. This is a label only used for manipulating the sentiments of the central herd of voters who political strategists target for each election. For instance, whenever Rush Limbaugh uses the noun Conservative, he is not describing behavior but labeling a herd for political purposes, a herd defined by their agreement with him. Rush completely avoids the futility-fostering divide and conquer tactic that Libertarians have no resistance to by his using labels that are more abstract and grandiose instead of splitting hairs and nit-picking to death ever-finer meaningless differences in ideas. Every day the actions taken by self-labeled Conservatives, including Rush, are less deserving of the adjective conservative to describe them. The less the adjective applies to those who adopt the label the bigger portion of the central herd of voters the Rush Conservative label covers. Rush does his part to deliver those available votes from the margins of the central herd of voters by stretching his label, not by incessantly splitting it into every finer slices.
When "conservative" is used erroneously as a synonym for or quality of "Christianity" the word loses even more meaning. Those who use these words synonymously represent a typical Conservative stereotype: Those who seek to yield all individual decisions, and thus the implied responsibility for those decisions, to an ultimate authority of a heavenly nature...and they are willing use every available force to impose their beliefs on others.
Conservative (adj) behavior as I define it can be best understood by visiting my website The Alphaville Decoder: The Conservative High-5. Conservative behavior as I define it can best be experienced by becoming a Ron Paul Republican and emulating Dr. Paul's example of participation and the applied High-5 principles. Dr. Paul is one of very few conservative politicians who are defined by their actions rather than by the populist label.
3. Liberal -Noun, The opposite of Conservative. Meaningless as a noun. As a political adjective it means belief in a benevolent big brother government such that more is always better. They seek to yield all individual decisions, and thus the implied responsibility for those decisions, to an ultimate authority of an earthly nature...and they are willing use every available force to impose their beliefs on others. They pursue an authority with the power to ensure homogenization in the name of diversity, oppression in the name of freedom and poverty in the name of prosperity. Liberal doses of government funded with liberal doses of Keynesian nonsense. As an adjective, "liberal" describes the behavior of Liberals with regard to nearly every position they take. This is in contrast to how the adjective "conservative" describes very little of what labeled Conservatives do. Liberals have blind faith in the government's ability to stave off the consequences of basing a society on unsustainable growth and consumption.
4. Statist - Noun, Very little distinction from Liberals in that the state is always the answer to every problem for them. Also they tend to measure the effectiveness of the state in economic terms and lean more towards the Chicago school than the Keynesian theories. Statists have blind faith in the government's ability to stave off the consequences of basing a society on unsustainable growth and consumption. They strongly adhere to the ends-justify-the means philosophy to rationalize their support of an ever-larger state.
5. Centrist -Noun, Defined by completely issue driven political behavior. They have no solid principles to guide their choices. They act on feelings alone. They have little use for the concept or action and consequence because how they feel about their position is far more important to their choices than what the consequences of their choices are. Their positions are arbitrary, based on influences that many others deem irrelevant. There is no way to intuit their position on any given issue based on their position on any other issue. They comprise a large portion of the targeted segment of voters that politicians go after once parties have already chosen candidates for November. These folks represent nothing more politically significant that a single tally mark on election day.
So, next time any of you tell me, "I'm a *LABEL*" you'll know exactly what I think you mean. I thought you should know.
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.
"Once the dictionary is abandoned all options are available." Rather than to avail oneself to more meaningless definitions, I would like to champion reclaiming the dictionary because some of the popular definitions being used are almost as Orwellian as "freedom is slavery".
This article on labels is similar to another recent article on labels, so I repeat my comment on that article in this article:
The only two categories that really mean anything are statist and libertarian, with liberal being a synonym of libertarian.
Liberalism and libertarianism are from the Latin "libertas", of freedom, and both mean a belief in the importance of individual liberty. This definition of liberalism is presently attributed to classical liberalism, to make liberalism available for Orwellian hijacking.
Conservatism is from the Latin "conservare", to preserve, and the term is uninformative without a description of what is to be preserved. A conservative at the time of America's founding may have been a British monarchist.
A liberal, a libertarian, and a Declaration of Independence-conservative are basically the same thing, so there is really one axis of importance on the Nolan Chart. This axis has freedom at one end and slavery at the other.
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.
