Q & A

Q: Why are you a libertarian?



A: I get this question most often from some atheist usually on Facebook that is simply blown away by the fact that I am an atheist but not a socialist/communist/leftist shit-for-brains fool like they are. The short answer is that I am a libertarian because I am smart not stupid. Now, for the long answer.



It is popular to denigrate libertarians as adolescents. This comes from the fact that many libertarians encounter the philosophy of liberty while in high school or college usually after reading Ayn Rand. They then reject Rand later when they have to suck someone's dick to get a job. The cognitive dissonance is too much, so they give over sort of like a long time punk in prison decides that he likes being the jailhouse bitch traded for cigarettes. These people either elect to become Democrats and Republicans depending upon what opportunity seemed most favorable at the time, and they sometimes switch back and forth between those two parties like Rick Perry and Arianna Huffington. What you soon discover about Democrats and Republicans is that they are like the Patriots and the Colts. They play really hard against each other, but they are still playing the same game. And like football, they sometimes trade players.



Other people find all this sort of thing sickening and reject it. They become radical because being radical is chic as fuck. They elect to become leftard communists. Why? Probably because of this icon seen on many T-shirts and posters:







Che is so fucking cool. He is so against the Man. Nevermind that the real Che Guevara was a murderer. Nevermind that communism doesn't work. Forget about the collapse of the Soviet Union, the embrace of capitalism in China, or the mass murders of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. In short, ignore the facts that communism leads to economic collapse and atrocity. Just put on some Rage Against the Machine and fight those evil corporate overlords. You know those overlords. They are the ones who probably made that Che Guevara T-shirt you are wearing or made the iPad you like to read The Communist Manifesto on. What fucking idiots.



When communists get tired of being mocked for their stupidity or denial of empirical data, they go from Red to Green and become environmentalists. This allows them to be cool, still bash on their corporate overlords, and sanitize their consumerism with a green emblem on their cup of Starbucks and buy some hippy trippy shit from Whole Foods. But underneath, these Greens are still Reds and slip easily back into their communist garb the moment it becomes expedient to do so. This usually happens when it comes to welfare spending or facing the reality that corporate agriculture is the only way to feed a world of 6 billion people.



I think I got in all my digs on the leftards. As I said, I am a libertarian because I am smart not stupid. All these other people are stupid. This doesn't mean there isn't stupidity amongst the libertarian crowd. In fact, I have had quite a field day with the Randroids, the conspiracy theory nuts like the Unknown Blogger, and the anarcho-capitalists who I find great affinity for but recognize their philosophy is based upon a faulty epistemological premise. It is those people who give libertarianism a bad name. Many of their conclusions may be sound, but the basis of those conclusions is what undermines them. They don't see this, but I do.



The popular notion is that libertarians are college dorm room debaters who don't live in the real world. They engage in endless arguments and debates derived from first principles that simply exhaust anyone else even listening to them including me. This is because the basis for their philosophy is a priori Platonist horseshit. What they fail to understand is that anyone can construct such an argument from first principles using some other first principle besides non-aggression such as "equality." Read Marx or Rawls to see such arguments. Nozick did the same thing, but he tempered his viewpoints as he aged based upon empirical reality. The conclusion people draw is that libertarianism is a Utopian fantasy that depends on a rhetorical trick. In short, it is a word game.



I am a libertarian based upon reality. My libertarianism is based upon empirical observation. I am a consequentialist. I see the outcomes of social and economic policies, and the ones I prefer and that actually work come out to be libertarian. Basically, I like shopping at Walmart with their everyday low prices. I realize that I enjoy a standard of living that rivals that of royalty from a century ago, and I have capitalism to thank for that. I think the Drug War is a colossal failure exactly the same way that Prohibition was a failure. I don't care if gay people like to fuck each other in the ass. Just spare me the details.



I don't do the anarchy thing because I don't see the evidence for it. I can be persuaded, but it will have to be on this empirical basis. What you will realize when talking to me is that I am quite different from those college dorm room debaters who read Rand and Rothbard. I argue with evidence. I am willing to change my viewpoints based on the evidence. I admit flaws and mistakes and shortcomings in my viewpoints. And no, I'm not a Republican who decided he liked smoking dope. I have never smoked marijuana in my life.



I am an atheist based on the evidence. I am also a libertarian based on the evidence. The difference between leftard atheists and myself comes down to economics. I know economics, and they don't. I am convinced that these atheists are not atheists for the same reasons that I am an atheist. As far as I know, these people became atheists because they got snubbed by the kids in Sunday School growing up. They were outcasts and nerds, so they socialized in a sub-peer group and comforted themselves with a feeling of intellectual superiority. Atheism was part of this but so was leftard political thinking. Their teachers in the academy were atheists and Commies, so they went along with that because they wanted to belong. This is why so many leftard atheist types always make arguments from authority but don't do any actual thinking for themselves. This is why they spend so much effort trying to sound smart instead of actually being smart. This is sad and pathetic. But if you think I am going to be merciful, fuck that. There is a reason nerds get their obnoxious asses beat. They fucking deserve it.



When I argue for libertarianism, I do so on the basis of facts. There are no tricks with me. I relate the facts as best as I know them. When someone tells me a fact, I acknowledge it such as when some corporation pollutes a river. People don't understand why I am dismissive of some arguments while I am quite accepting of others. When a leftard argues that welfare is the compassionate thing to do, I dismiss this shit without a further thought. If they persist, I mock it. But if they show where a corporation did something evil such as Enron's manipulation of energy markets for profit, I listen to that. It all comes down to facts.



It is not enough to go just with facts. You also need peer review. If you want to see where facts without peer review get you, look no further than the conspiracy theorists. They abound with facts. They even sound convincing until you realize that their presentation of the facts is selective. But you won't know this unless you have others willing to test and debunk these theories. This principle of peer review is why I go out of my way to befriend those with opposing viewpoints. You will notice that deluded types do the opposite. They expunge those people from their circles that disagree with them. This is stupid. I call this intellectual inbreeding. I really don't understand when libertarians do this. The whole point of free expression is to give the truth a chance to come out. Ignoring things you don't want to hear is no different than if the government chooses to censor it for you. The effect is the same. You may have a moral and a legal right to ignore opposing viewpoints in the same way that you have the moral and legal right to smoke cigarettes. But it is still a bad idea.

Posted in: