THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 806, January 25, 2015
We do have some advantages the other side is
lacking, among them, a working sense of humor.
Republicans haven't had a sense of humor for
a century. They no longer cherish any beliefs,
and they're sensitive about it.
Calling All True Believers: The Welfare State Will NOT Set You Free
Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise
The promise of the free lunch is a dangerous delusion and I've got proof. Found it on a blog called "Dangerous Minds" with an article titled: Class War for Idiots: Libertarianism = Assholism.
Oh boy—here we go again!
This one gets it so wrong ; much like Nancy Pelosi did making the same promise in the debates leading up to the passage of Obama Care. Actually the real power to tell your boss (or the government) to go pound salt—for a better term ; is when you own a house and a piece of land free and clear that no one can tax or charge you rent or take it away for some trumped up criminal charge or eminent domain*. And true freedom is when you can't be drafted into an army or forced to tap into a water main or buy a government approved health plan. The idea that a welfare state can free you to do driftwood sculptures and become a musician is a prosperous and a cruel illusion for useful idiots who end up running harder and harder to stay in the same place in order to pay for what they thought was going to be a free lunch. But is only free for the government officials and the business interests who enjoy the aristocracy of pull because they grease the right palms or are "Too Big to Fail".
As for the utopian promise embraced by the true believers: it is either wishful thinking or a flat out lie.
In the real world the Welfare State is not a check against our servility to the rich. It just institutionalizes it. Like one scholar said: the government protects old fortunes and makes new ones more difficult if not impossible.
They argue that money is power but the only reason that is so is because progressives gave the government too much authority over the private affairs of the common man. In a true Libertarian society where free enterprise and private property rights are king—Bill Gates or Donald Trump cannot take someone's property if they don't want to sell. In such a society the owner determines the price—and if he doesn't want to sell—then its tough shit. When the government can force someone to sell by raising property taxes or taking the property by eminent domain backed by the threat of deadly force if the owner refuses to vacate—you have robbing from the poor and giving to the rich. There is a more fair market when the rich have to negotiate directly with the poor who otherwise get shafted when pressured to sell under less favorable terms imposed by the government.
Now there is the objection that the rich could raise private armies to take things or drive people out of their homes but that problem can be solved by an armed citizenry and unrestricted right to own state of the art military weapons—and unrestricted right to use such arms in defense of their homes and communities.
That again sets a fair price on land and resources because if enough of Donald Trump's hypothetical hired thugs get shot up—others will be more reluctant to do his bidding. And as you have suggested—he might get the message that someone might come after him too if it doesn't stop. It's the reasoning behind the Second Amendment and why El Neil says that any man, woman or responsible child ought to be carry anything open or concealed. The principle applies to private armies and police forces as it does to government ones. As for proving Mr Trump or whoever was behind it—I am thinking more in terms of defensive action against the hit men or mercenaries in action—using deadly force to liquidate them if they are attacking or caught up to no good while trespassing on private property. If they surround a house under siege with weapons pointed at it—they are fair game to the occupants and anyone else in the neighborhood who might not like the idea of their neighbors and friends being shot at, tear gassed or burned out of their homes—or fearful of being next on the hit list.
That was what the Founders intended by the right to keep and bear arms. Worked pretty good in days of old and though it was not perfect—it was better than what we have today. Which is government power that is just as bad as everything it was hired to protect us from. And too many people content to count on it for protection at the expense of freedom—their own and their neighbors. In other words—the society is FUBAR—like in the old Air Force acronym.
As for calling people "assholes"***—that is usually the hallmark of a loser or a person who doesn't understand who their real enemies are. The more principled leftists are often confused in this regard when they claim that government is the source of their liberties when it is in reality a threat to the same. They are the useful idiots to the cruel and cunning progressives and other statists who will promise anything—just like many republicans will say they are for small government or go speak at a Tea Party event to fool fiscal conservatives and libertarians.
Guess I had to let that dig slip.
My answer to that is that Republicans who trade Liberty for security (ie the war on drugs or terrorism) are the right wing equivalent of those on the Left who trade the same for the promise of a free lunch—they get nor deserve none of the above.
Just more tyranny and oppression for themselves and the rest of us.
* The ultimate freedom in a truly free society.
** I think that was Mary Ruwart in Healing Our World.
*** In the Air Force my NCOIC—a Tech Sergeant used to lecture the
junior non-coms—Sergeants & Staff Sergeants that "If your people
don't call you an "Asshole" you're not doing your job". As in being
an effective supervisor and leader. In the world of politics the term
is definitely reserved for a President or other leaders in the
opposing party who are being effective in advancing their agenda. Or
a prospective candidates on the other side that have great potential
because they are effective communicators with charisma and positions
on issues which people will rally behind. And of course must be
destroyed at all cost. Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton fall into that
**** With friends like that—who needs enemies or democrats? But is it any surprise given that Ms. Coulter not long ago was going gaga over Chris Christie as a prospective GOP presidential candidate. Which is a prime example of both wishful thinking and trading Liberty for security. Putting faith in a RINO will get you neither.
This site may receive compensation if a product is purchased