THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 694, October 28, 2012
"Libertarianism must, for the foreseeable
future, be a strategy for conservatives"
On "Gangsoops, Stopas, Level, i.e.,s, Brochureas, Lefties, Jihadics,
Tyranniesideases, (and) Anywhichwayes"
Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise
[ Note: Most of the odd words in Mr. Brown's article were caused by him accidentally sending a rough draft, and Your Local Discombobulated Editor being more discombobulated than usual (I know, hard to imagine!). But everybody loves a good rant, so here we go.Editor ]
In re David M. Brown's article in TLE number 693 the author seems to discuss the philosophy and personal preferences of Roy A. Childs, Jr. as commented upon by George H. Smith (whose first name and middle initial the [editor] somehow left out [ yes, I did!Editor ]; although the rarity of the name "Smith" is such that we all should, apparently, recognize it at once as being George) and Ronald N. Neff, with whose name he also seems to have some trouble.
Sandwiched between two bits of discussion of Mr. Childs and his change of heart on the subject of anarchy (and George and Ronald's comments thereon), its practicality and moral comparison to the rule of a state, Mr. Brown wanders afield into his own value judgments on the moral virtue of aggressive violence as embodied in political states. He very adroitly combines the above with his utter abhorrence of political freedom and the vile and disgusting act of leaving other people alone.
As I am not directly conversant with the works of Mr. Childs to any extent, I will leave the evaluation of his thought processes and moral judgments to his friends and students. However, on Mr. Brown's value judgments, "understanding" of history and enviable ability to predict the future of alternate realities with cast-iron accuracy, I may take some umbrage and venture to disagree.
I will only "venture" to disagree because I am, in my vast ignorance of the English language and human history, not conversant with some of the more specialized words and phrases that he uses, such as:
"gangsoops, stopa, leveli.e.,, brochurea, leftie, jihadic, tyranniesideas, (and) anywhichway";
the last of which seems, to my dim intellectual vision, to be three English words run together.
Or the phrases:
"Libertarian Law Code, Mafia Defense Agency, PLO Defense Agency, Al Qaeda Defense Agency, [and] Allah Defense Code",
none of which I have heard of before. If I may venture a WAG (Wild Ass Guess) the first phrase above may refer to the body of custom and judicial precedent traditionally known as "The Common Law" in English speaking countries. I am probably wrong on that one. If, in my abysmal ignorance I have misconstrued some or all of the technical words or phrases and thus come to an incorrect understanding of Mr. Brown's ideas, I apologize. Mea culpa. Please forgive.
For my venture into disagreement with Mr. Brown I will confine myself to three apparent errors of reason and fact that I seem to find in wading through his turgid and opaque prose:
The good ol' straw-man argument form.
In Dave's defense of armed robbery, rape, genocide and slavery (the four functions of the "state" throughout actual history, rather than his fantasy of it) he attempts to refute the arguments of the libertarians, specifically the anarcho-capitalists. Unfortunately, being unable to find any actual unsupportable positions of that school of philosophy, he must set up straw-men to knock down; attributing positions to the anarcho-capitalists that they do not hold and actually oppose. He is claiming that governments, their agencies and at least one militant church are actually free market business firms that advocate private property rights and the absence of a government. His examples are, specifically: the mafia, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the United States Central Intelligence Agency (Al Qaeda appears to be a CIA front) and "Allah Defense Code"; the latter having no definite meaning or referent, but appearing to refer to the Muslim church and its canon law. None of these governments or churches are in any way anarcho-capitalist or have any interest in political liberty, other than to destroy it. His unsupported assertions therefor fail the straw-man and non-sequeter tests, as well as the "silly twit" test.
The claimed inability to distinguish between a thing and its opposite.
This overlaps with the straw-man "argument" described above. Ol' Dave asserts that things that are diametric opposites of each other are the same as each other. That the Israeli conquest of Lebanon is in fact the absence of a government in Lebanon. Hey, Dave! Israel is a socialist state, not the absence of one in that region. When Israel conquered Lebanon it ruled Lebanon to the extent that it was able. That is pretty much the definition of the presence of a government, not its absence.
Ol' Dave tells us that in the absence of a government, security firms will have to obtain a "license" to operate, and that if they violate the "law" they will have their "licenses" revoked, and be unable to operate. Gosh, Dave, in the absence of a government who will issue any license to do business? Who will revoke such a license? Who will forcibly (by means of military attack) shut down a business that operates without such a license? Dave has now told us that the absence of a government means the presence of a government.
The appeal to Dave's fantasy presented as "history". (AKA lies.)
Uh, Dave, can we try an actual "fact" or two, instead of your fantasies? A few points of fact:
That last historical fact is why the four functions of all government are:
No state has ever been organized to preserve human rights or political or economic liberty; false advertising (the Federalist Papers in Usa, for example) notwithstanding. They are organized exclusively for the profit and pleasure of the politicians and fascists who own them, and their vile servants. Your statements to the contrary are just lies.
Now, Dave, you have offered to present a constitution that you say will actually, finally, this time it's for real: constrain and prevent the new state that you propose to inflict on me from violating my rights, robbing me, raping me, enslaving me or killing me. So far, you have shown absolutely no proof or evidence to support your contention. I am supposed to buy a pig in a poke, paying with all that I have, my family and my life. After ten thousand blood-soaked years of hearing that scam (hey, I'm an old guy, after all....) I find it just a little bit hard to believe.
Now, some would say that I have been a bit harsh with ol' Dave, here; and I must agree to a certain extent. I have dismissed and replaced some of his alleged "facts", refuted his attempts at reasoning, countered his fantasy with history (an exercise in futility for him, no doubt), called him on his dishonesty, demanded that he come clean (Hey, Dave, come clean!) and impugned his mental health (psychopathology) and sexual orientation (sadism). Those last two being obvious, from his context as an apologist for the state, its founding "principles" and its works.
That said, it could have been worse. He could have been as bad as old Master John from some years ago, with his Marxo-slavery-freedom non-economic catechism. Both, however, obviously have the same goals in mind. You can see Master John's blithering government worship at: [this link] and my response at [this link] if you wish.
Have I been harsh with Ol' Dave as with Master John? Oh, yes. His strident ignorance, his blatant dishonesty, his vicious insults to those whom he would enslave and his simpering piety to the Holy State cry out for the harshest of rebuttal. I hope this might serve.
Was that worth reading?