Yesterday was a busy day in Canada, with government moving in on Ottawa protestors with pepper spray and gas in order to get them to exit the ‘illegal protest’ area. Later, the government assured the public they would track down and prosecute the protestors.
Is it really libertarian or more simply a matter of demanding our human rights be respected? And I understand there’s a crossover but I feel like this is far too nuanced for traditional labels.
To borrow a (rather simplistic yet spot on) example, if two people are drowning, who has the right to the only life jacket?
I've no problem arguing principles (heck, I used to teach the history of ideas) but all principles must be testable against and in objective reality.
(Even if we only perceive and communicate reality subjectively, there is only one objective reality to be subjective about - the rock does not become a potato now matter how hard I attack it with solipsisitic sophistry.)
Or take abortion.
On the one hand, it is generally seen as the sovereign right of the woman to have the fetus aborted. On the other hand, eugenics are largely frowned upon today, especially among the same people who argue the right to abortion as absolute.
So what if this woman discovers that the child will be born severly retarded, so bad that it will never even learn to care for itself when it grows up? If abortion is her right, the eugenics in question doesn't enter into it. But if eugenics are wrong, would we then be obligated to force her to deliver the child?
And so on. Any principle, value, code of ethics, what have you must be tested. How, when, where and why does it break apart. What are the dangerous or unintended negative consequences of it? How can it be abused counter to its intent?
The greatest danger is to be very principled but never testing ones principles: that invariably leads to the principle of the thing becoming the thing itself.
Personally, I've arrived at the position that the only way to do good is to actively strive to avoid doing evil. This is because proclaiming a set goal or a moral principle as [Good] means to start that slippery slide downslope where means, end and justification becomes one. At least for that s. There's nothing saying that it's that way for anyone else.
Additionally, no one has a right to an object. They both have the right to learn how to swim before they need one. One way I think of things (and I can't remember where I got this but I didn't come up with it), is that if you depend on someone else to do something in order to bring it into being, it's not a right...
I came to this conclusion late, around 2009 when I woke up and realized the Democrat Party had become a criminal organization composed of thugs. They cannot win in the marketplace of ideas, which leaves them with force and ad hominem attacks. Not good.
The model is the PRI in Mexico, the Partido Revolucionario Institucional. When the Revolutionary Party becomes an Institution, it is no longer a revolutionary party, but is an oppressor.
Being a virtual myself I would disagree. But maybe only because I used to be physical ;) Ultimately we shouldn't care what anybody else is doing, and the only reason we're forced to care is that they are authoritarian and telling us what to do. If Karen wants to stay home and mask forever, good for her. It's only when she starts demanding actions of others that we are forced to become libertarian.
I am a libertarian always. I'm quite used to screaming into the void about the dangers of the drug war and the importance of free speech when nobody cares. But as governments get more authoritarian, more and more people begin to understand the power of libertarian arguments. We have a lot more allies today than we did 5 years ago.
I expect this to last exactly as long as it's convenient ;)
With all the excess mortality, we may be in a new paradigm of non sheep surviving, so it may last a bit longer than just convenient one can hope....and I love librarians....
Yes, a lot of people complaining today about government telling them what to do with their bodies, censoring their speech, convincing banks to "de-bank" them, telling people who, what, how, and where they could peacefully worship, etc., didn't care when it was happening to groups that they deem unacceptable, even if those groups didn't push their views onto others. It was okay then because various mumbled explanations of a claimed moral high ground.
The lack of critical thinking skills amongst Canada's ruling elites is stunning, to say the least. If you threaten to take everything away from people, and completely disenfranchise them from society, you have left them with nothing to lose. This makes the elites feel powerful, but what they don't realize is that it actually strips them of any long-term power that they ever possessed. People with nothing to lose get bolder and braver, not more cowed and cowardly. People with nothing to lose created the French Revolution, the American Revolution, and the Underground Railroad.
Sadly, that used to be true but now I seriously wonder. If the smart young set can not only allow but cheer the destruction of their youngest children, they ain't gonna fight for anything.
On the other hand, life always finds a way. Not only are these people not replacement-level reproducing, but they're actively colluding in the sterilization of a fairly significant percentage of current adolescents. Meanwhile the sorts of people represented by truckers and farmers tend to have more than 2 kids.
(I myself feel nobody needs more than 2 kids, but you want 'em and can afford 'em--not my business...)
Well, if a bunch of people have <2 kids, then some people have to have >2 kids, just to maintain replacement. If shrinkage is the goal, however, and not having people to care for you in old age is fine, then for those who wish it, be "child-free".
I think the bigger problem is an entire structuring of normal human life. It's normal to desire to successfully mate and have offspring. If someone doesn't want them (as distinguished from being able to have them or not being able to find a suitable mate), that's fine. If a woman finds the whole idea of domestic life distasteful, that's fine. Such women should have every resource to make successful, satisfying solo lives. But it's not something to aggressively celebrate. It's just a choice appropriate for you. It doesn't make you some sort of brilliantly-evolved person.
But the demonization of parenthood has been going on a long time, and it's reached the absolute heights of ludicrousness. Now anyone can be a mother or a father! The terms are meaningless, interchangeable and not worthy of value. But I was always stunned by how purported feminists really only meant "you gotta be our kind of woman." If you yearn for the ordinary life, you're a shameful failure brainwashed by the purported patriarchy. If you really want to stay home with your kids until they reach, say, first-grade age, they think you're a Christian fanatic or something.
The greatest threat to women's autonomy is the loss of retirement-age credits if you choose to stay home to raise children. Having your own guaranteed minimum retirement income means that you can risk being dependent on a partner during your own prime earning years.
Now they're going after business owners who stayed open and didn't follow the 'suggestion' that they close down. You'll note that the closed businesses were one of the excuses that the protestors were hurting Canadians.
Robert (4th) Reich channels Tricky Dick.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/19/white-house-biden-inflation-corporate-power
Is it really libertarian or more simply a matter of demanding our human rights be respected? And I understand there’s a crossover but I feel like this is far too nuanced for traditional labels.
Well, what is human rights?
To borrow a (rather simplistic yet spot on) example, if two people are drowning, who has the right to the only life jacket?
I've no problem arguing principles (heck, I used to teach the history of ideas) but all principles must be testable against and in objective reality.
(Even if we only perceive and communicate reality subjectively, there is only one objective reality to be subjective about - the rock does not become a potato now matter how hard I attack it with solipsisitic sophistry.)
Or take abortion.
On the one hand, it is generally seen as the sovereign right of the woman to have the fetus aborted. On the other hand, eugenics are largely frowned upon today, especially among the same people who argue the right to abortion as absolute.
So what if this woman discovers that the child will be born severly retarded, so bad that it will never even learn to care for itself when it grows up? If abortion is her right, the eugenics in question doesn't enter into it. But if eugenics are wrong, would we then be obligated to force her to deliver the child?
And so on. Any principle, value, code of ethics, what have you must be tested. How, when, where and why does it break apart. What are the dangerous or unintended negative consequences of it? How can it be abused counter to its intent?
The greatest danger is to be very principled but never testing ones principles: that invariably leads to the principle of the thing becoming the thing itself.
Personally, I've arrived at the position that the only way to do good is to actively strive to avoid doing evil. This is because proclaiming a set goal or a moral principle as [Good] means to start that slippery slide downslope where means, end and justification becomes one. At least for that s. There's nothing saying that it's that way for anyone else.
Additionally, no one has a right to an object. They both have the right to learn how to swim before they need one. One way I think of things (and I can't remember where I got this but I didn't come up with it), is that if you depend on someone else to do something in order to bring it into being, it's not a right...
Free speech provides two life jackets.
“The real division is not between conservatives and revolutionaries but between authoritarians and libertarians.”
― George Orwell
I came to this conclusion late, around 2009 when I woke up and realized the Democrat Party had become a criminal organization composed of thugs. They cannot win in the marketplace of ideas, which leaves them with force and ad hominem attacks. Not good.
The model is the PRI in Mexico, the Partido Revolucionario Institucional. When the Revolutionary Party becomes an Institution, it is no longer a revolutionary party, but is an oppressor.
"When the Revolutionary Party becomes an Institution, it is no longer revolutionary." This is quotable!
Or is it between “Physicals” and “Virtuals”?
https://theupheaval.substack.com/p/reality-honks-back?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=email
Being a virtual myself I would disagree. But maybe only because I used to be physical ;) Ultimately we shouldn't care what anybody else is doing, and the only reason we're forced to care is that they are authoritarian and telling us what to do. If Karen wants to stay home and mask forever, good for her. It's only when she starts demanding actions of others that we are forced to become libertarian.
“I’m not a libertarian, I just want the government the fuck out my life!”
-Def a libertarian 😉
I am a libertarian always. I'm quite used to screaming into the void about the dangers of the drug war and the importance of free speech when nobody cares. But as governments get more authoritarian, more and more people begin to understand the power of libertarian arguments. We have a lot more allies today than we did 5 years ago.
I expect this to last exactly as long as it's convenient ;)
With all the excess mortality, we may be in a new paradigm of non sheep surviving, so it may last a bit longer than just convenient one can hope....and I love librarians....
Yes, a lot of people complaining today about government telling them what to do with their bodies, censoring their speech, convincing banks to "de-bank" them, telling people who, what, how, and where they could peacefully worship, etc., didn't care when it was happening to groups that they deem unacceptable, even if those groups didn't push their views onto others. It was okay then because various mumbled explanations of a claimed moral high ground.
And in closing, “HONK HONK”!
A police horse tramples a woman with a walker, and they say someone threw a bicycle at the horse. Walker = bicycle. Threw = got jostled. Very smooth.
Edit: More on the trampled lady who seems to have a broken clavicle and is hopefully recovering:
https://redstate.com/nick-arama/2022/02/20/heres-more-on-the-ottawa-freedom-convoy-woman-run-over-by-police-with-their-horses-n525440
fences dont stop trucks or tractors
.50 calibers will.
We're going full Maximum Overdrive, aren't we?
just pointing out how ridiculous it is, if things went that way nothing could stop them flattening the whole damn parliament. so what's the fence for?
To separate us. It's ALL symbolism. The lines have been drawn.
The lack of critical thinking skills amongst Canada's ruling elites is stunning, to say the least. If you threaten to take everything away from people, and completely disenfranchise them from society, you have left them with nothing to lose. This makes the elites feel powerful, but what they don't realize is that it actually strips them of any long-term power that they ever possessed. People with nothing to lose get bolder and braver, not more cowed and cowardly. People with nothing to lose created the French Revolution, the American Revolution, and the Underground Railroad.
Sadly, that used to be true but now I seriously wonder. If the smart young set can not only allow but cheer the destruction of their youngest children, they ain't gonna fight for anything.
On the other hand, life always finds a way. Not only are these people not replacement-level reproducing, but they're actively colluding in the sterilization of a fairly significant percentage of current adolescents. Meanwhile the sorts of people represented by truckers and farmers tend to have more than 2 kids.
(I myself feel nobody needs more than 2 kids, but you want 'em and can afford 'em--not my business...)
Well, if a bunch of people have <2 kids, then some people have to have >2 kids, just to maintain replacement. If shrinkage is the goal, however, and not having people to care for you in old age is fine, then for those who wish it, be "child-free".
I think the bigger problem is an entire structuring of normal human life. It's normal to desire to successfully mate and have offspring. If someone doesn't want them (as distinguished from being able to have them or not being able to find a suitable mate), that's fine. If a woman finds the whole idea of domestic life distasteful, that's fine. Such women should have every resource to make successful, satisfying solo lives. But it's not something to aggressively celebrate. It's just a choice appropriate for you. It doesn't make you some sort of brilliantly-evolved person.
But the demonization of parenthood has been going on a long time, and it's reached the absolute heights of ludicrousness. Now anyone can be a mother or a father! The terms are meaningless, interchangeable and not worthy of value. But I was always stunned by how purported feminists really only meant "you gotta be our kind of woman." If you yearn for the ordinary life, you're a shameful failure brainwashed by the purported patriarchy. If you really want to stay home with your kids until they reach, say, first-grade age, they think you're a Christian fanatic or something.
The greatest threat to women's autonomy is the loss of retirement-age credits if you choose to stay home to raise children. Having your own guaranteed minimum retirement income means that you can risk being dependent on a partner during your own prime earning years.
Now they're going after business owners who stayed open and didn't follow the 'suggestion' that they close down. You'll note that the closed businesses were one of the excuses that the protestors were hurting Canadians.
That is a new level of tyranny! The needle on my outrage meter has officially broken.
No fucking shit (you should pardon the language).
Added another story at the bottom which blows my mind.
Good God. And they still wonder why the ordinary German was terrified to help his neighbor.